In The House Of Representatives, February 26, 1904.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and having under consideration the bill (H.R. 1220) making appropriations for the naval service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1905, and for other purposes—

Mr. HILL of Connecticut said: Mr. Chairman: The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Roberts] has just read from a part of the army report. With the consent of the House I will insert in the Record the entire report from the office of the Chief of Artillery, and made by a board of officers convened under Special Order, No. 20, Adjustant-General's Office, January 24, 1903, and submitted by them a few days ago. The president of the board was Maj. Arthur Murray, of the Artillery Corps, and acting with him were Capt. C.F. Parker and Capt. C.J. Bailey. I will also insert, in addition to the official report of the army officers, a report of a civilian who accompanied the Lake torpedo boat in its cruise at Newport and gave his account in New Orleans Times-Democrat on February 14, 1904. I shall insert these as a part of my remarks.

Now, I would ask the attention of the House for a few minutes. I will try and be as brief as possible and not take up the whole time allotted to me. I shall not talk any politics, because we have had too much discussion of that kind in this debate, but I want to talk just plain, straight business for a few minutes.

About two years ago, or just two years ago, when the naval appropriation bill came in, it had in it a provision for the purchase of six Holland torpedo boats. We then had under contract six boats of that class and owned two, making eight. That bill provided for the purchase of six more. Ten minutes before that proposition came up, I was called out by a gentleman in the gallery who stated to me that representing a large number of my constituents in the Fourth district of Connecticut he pledged himself that if the purchase of submarine boats could be thrown open to competition he would give the Government the benefit of twenty years of his experience.

I came upon the floor of the House and stated the substance of his offer, and the House rejected the provision at that time. I gave my pledge to the House that if this should be done, these gentlemen, whom I knew to be financially responsible, would carry out their agreement. They immediately went to work, building boats. One of those boats was finished last spring, and in accordance with that action on their part, there was in the bill of last year a provision setting aside for the use of the Secretary of the Navy half a million dollars to be used in holding a competition not only between private boats, but the boats owned by the Government or any American citizen who chose to bring his boat 0002 2into open competition, in order that the Secretary of the Navy after such competition might decide as to what he should purchase.

Last Spring that notice was given to the only two companies in this country who are making submarine torpedo boats—the Holland Company and the Lake Torpedo Company: and the date fixed for the competition was October 16. Mr. Lake was ready with his boat, finished; and he was not only ready then, but was ready at the naval review in Oyster Bay. And his boat was visible and open, to be visited and examined by everybody.

The gentleman from Massachusetts says that there are military reasons why the Navy Department should not give out the details of these boats. All I have to say is that the torpedo boat Protector is open to the inspection of anybody, not only in this country, but from foreign countries as well. And it has been visited by attachés of the Japanese and the Russian Governments.

Last October, happening to be in Washington on my way to the West, I received a telegram from Mr. Lake advising me that the test had been postponed. I went to the Navy Department and asked why it had been postponed.

I was informed that the Holland people had notified the Department that they were not ready and would not be until November 16. This competitive test was not confined entirely to the Holland boat; the law says distinctly and specifically—here is the language: “Tested by comparison or competition, or both, with a Government subsurface or submarine torpedo boat or any private competitor.” I said to the Secretary of the Navy and to Captain Train, president of the naval board of inspection and survey: “Gentlemen, I ask you now to carry out the spirit of the legislation of last year and put a Government boat in this competition; you have six of them.” Captain Train replied to me: “It is absolutely useless: I am ready to admit now that the Protector outclasses anything which the Government has.” That was the reply made to me in the presence of the Secretary of the Navy. I then said: “Go on with your competition on the 16th of November.” On that date Mr. Lake's boat, the Protector, was at Newport—not towed there by somebody else, but going under its own power from Bridgeport, Conn., to Newport, and towing a schooner all the way in addition.

Mr. WATSON. What was the make of the Government boat? Mr. HILL of Connecticut. The Holland, a class of boats on which the Government has spent nearly a million and a half of dollars: and the Protector had been developed, as my constituents said it should be, at their own expense-an expense involving between three or four hundred thousand dollars, with no customer on earth except the Government. Nobody else wants to buy such an article—a weapon of offense.

Mr. DAYTON. Engineered by a company with five or six million dollars of capital and a $50.000 plant.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. There is no trouble about the plant or about the boats. These men have done what they agreed to do. They brought this boat into full preparation for a competition for which the Government—

Mr. DAYTON. I beg the gentleman's pardon. I was referring to the Holland boat.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. I know nothing about the Holland company or the Holland boat except what I have learned from official reports of the Government, which I will give in a moment.

Time passed on, and November 16 came around. The Protector, the Lake boat, appeared at Newport ready for this competition. But on the journey down it broke its reversing gear in towing the schooner which it took down with it, so that it could only go ahead, but could not go back. I wish the United States Government would break its reversing gear, so that it could only go ahead. It does go backward many times, but I do not want it to do so now.

The Holland boat was not there, although the Navy Department had offered to lend the Holland Company one of the boats which the Government had purchased, but the offer was declined.

When the next time was fixed and the board went to Newport, they found the bay covered with ice, so that the test has not yet been held.

Now, as I understand the purpose of this committee, it is to apply this half million dollars, which was appropriated last year, to precisely the purposes for which it was intended, to hold this competition, which be held within thirty days, if weather permits and anybody is ready to compete. My constituents are ready to compete, or will be. They are now changing the screws of the boat. So that whatever also may have been done, it is absolutely certain that, so far as the Lake torpedo boat is concerned, they are ready for business.

But, gentlemen, there has been a test held. It was said a year ago that no competition would be held, notwithstanding the appropriation by Congress. Thus far that prophecy is true. I hope that before many weeks it will be falsified.

But there has been a competition entirely unknown to me until a few days ago, when I learned that there had been a competition between these two classes of boats.

Now, understand, they are different in size, they are different in very many essential features. The Lake boat is a twin-screw boat, the Holland is a single screw. The Lake boat carries three torpedo tubes, the Holland carries one. One is much larger than the other. The gentleman from Massachusetts. I think without any intention of confining this appropriation entirely to the purchase of Holland torpedo boats—for I do not think he meant it—practically has done so by the language which he has used directing that the Secretary of the Navy shall buy five of these boats at $170,000 apiece. Well, you can not buy the Lake torpedo boats at $170,000 apiece, and consequently I have moved to strike out “five,” and leave it wholly discretionary with the Secretary of the Navy whether he shall buy one or five or none. That is the position in which I want it left.

Mr. FOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Certainly. Mr. FOSS. How much do you appropriate in your amendment?

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Oh, I have just simply stricken “five” out of the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Roberts] and left it otherwise intact. I do not want to be too radical in amendments. I am perfectly willing, so far as I am concerned, to make it $5,000,000 and leave it discretionary with the Hon. William H. Moody. I left it just as it is, $850,000 instead of $500,000, and I will tell you in a moment why I did that. If the bill is amended in accordance with the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Roberts] and my amendment to his amendment, it will carry $850,000, leaving it absolutely discretionary with the Secretary of the Navy whether he 0004 4uses it all or not, whether he buys one, two, three, or five boats, or whatever he can get.

Mr. FOSS. May I ask the gentleman a question? Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Certainly. Mr. FOSS. The gentleman has read the committee provision, I suppose?

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Certainly. Mr. FOSS. To the effect that the Secretary of the Navy is authorized to purchase two submarine boats after he has made tests ?

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Yes. Mr. FOSS. As to which is the better of the two. Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Yes. Mr. FOSS. And that we reappropriate $500,000, which has not been used, but which was appropriated in the last naval appropriation bill.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Yes. Now, if the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Roberts] is agreed to, supplemented by my amendment to his amendment, the result will be simply to increase that amount from $500,000 to $850,000.

Mr. FOSS. That is to say, an increase of $350,000. Mr. HILL of Connecticut. An increase of $350,000. Mr. FOSS. Will the gentleman yield further? Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Certainly. Mr. FOSS. As I take it, the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Roberts] does not mean a reappropriation of that $500,000 which now remains unexpended.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. I should like to ask the gentleman chairman of the committee, does he think it is necessary to reappropriate the other $500,000? Was not that a continuing appropriation, and, as a matter of fact, would not this be an additional appropriation of $850,000?

Mr. FOSS. I think the gentleman's amendment and the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, taken together, would be an additional appropriation.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. That is just what I think.

Mr. FOSS. Whereas our appropriation here is a reappropriation of that $500,000, which has not yet been used.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Exactly. Now, I am in favor of giving the Secretary of the Navy the largest liberty on this proposition.

I believe, gentlemen, you have reached a point where you are possibly changing the entire system of naval warfare in the world. I believe that the dreams of Jules Verne have practically come to fulfillment, and that the time is not far distant when by submarine warfare it will become possible to stop every hostile invasion of every country in the world by sea, because of the impossibility of doing it successfully. Mr. WM.. ALDEN SMITH. I do not want the gentleman to get away from the question of competition he said he was going to tell us about.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. I will not read the entire report of this army board. I will read their recommendation and conclusions. The report, let me say, has thus far been held secret. So that there can be no misunderstanding, because I do not wish to betray any confidence, I will state that a few days ago I learned that such a competition had been held, that a competent board of gentlemen whom I have named had visited, examined, and tried 0005 5both boats and had made their reports. I went to the Secretary of War and asked for a copy of the report. The Secretary called General Storey, Chief of Artillery, into his room, and stated that he desired the utmost publicity in all matters where it was proper to have it in connection with the office of the Secretary, and General Storey said that while it was a question of military strategy, he thought no harm would come about in giving Captain Lake a copy for his stockholders, who had patriotically as well as financially invested from $300,000 to $400,000 in this business. I then asked him for and he gave me a copy of this statement. I then asked him for another copy for myself, with the distinct agreement that I might read it to you as Members of Congress—the legislators of this country. So that I am not using it in violation or betrayal of any secrecy imposed upon me, because that was the distinct understanding, that I could so read it.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the gentleman from Connecticut give me the date of his report?

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Oh, yes: January 21, 1904.

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, I want to say to the gentleman, if the gentleman will excuse me, that the report of the board was dated November 28, 1902, some two years prior to his.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. I am very glad to find the date of that other report. Since they made that report they have had another meeting, examined this boat later, and had recommended the purchase of five of these boats, so that this was a second proposition. I will put the whole report in the Record. It goes into an elaborate discussion of the Protector.

Proceedings of a board of officers convened by the following order: [Special orders No. 20.] Headquarters of the Army, Adjutant-General's Office, Washington, January 24, 1903.

Extract. 5. By direction of the Secretary of War, a board of officers to consist of Maj. Arthur Murray, Artillery Corps; Capt. Charles J. Bailey, Artillery Corps; Capt. Charles F. Parker, Artillery Corps, will convene at Bridgeport, Conn., on January 26, 1903, for the purpose of witnessing and reporting upon the test of the submarine torpedo boat Protector.

Upon the completion of this duty the officers composing the board will return to their proper stations.

Such journeys as may be required by the board in obeying this order are necessary for the public service.

By command of Lieutenant-General Miles: H.C. Corbin, Adjutant-General, Major-General, U.S. Army. Fort Totten, N.Y., January 21, 1904. Pursuant to the above order, the board proceeded to Bridgeport, Conn., on January 27, 1903, and inspected the Protector. The boat was not then in condition for under-water service, owing to changes and improvements under way, and while a surface run could have been made it was deemed inadvisable, owing to a thick fog. Mr. Lake, the designer of the boat, stated that he would communicate with the board when all was in satisfactory condition.

The board this day inspected all parts of the boat and the detailed drawings, and discussed with the designer the purposes for which it could be used and the methods of using it. The board communicated informally with Mr. Lake at various times, but owing to other duties of the members and to the work of the designer in improving and preparing the boat for trials before a naval committee, did not again visit it during the year.

The boat finally being in readiness, Mr. Lake, on January 15, 1904, requested the board to inspect it at Newport, R.I. Authority, therefore, was 0006 6asked for and received by telegraph (see Appendices A and B) and the board proceeded to Newport on January 19 for that purpose. The boat was then awaiting a competitive test with boats of another design by a naval board, and a copy of the programme of that test was shown the board by Mr. Lake. This programme is comprehensive. and being designed by naval officers, the board, after carefully considering it, decided to confine its work to such features of the boat as would emphasize its adaptability for the needs of seacoast defense and attack from the standpoint of the land forces, particularly in connection with the submarine defense and attack of harbors, leaving the technical details of its construction and its purely naval features to naval experts.

The board considered the following possible uses of the boat:

FOR THE DEFENSE First, to replace fixed mines, by lying adjacent to the fort and attacking vessels attempting to reduce the works or to run past, particularly in important channels where it is impracticable to plant mines, owing to deep and rough water, extreme width, or swift currents.

Second, to supplement fixed mines by attacking vessels approaching the mine fields or those which have crossed them.

Third, to lie outside mine fields for scouting or picket duty, keeping in telephonic communication as hereafter described.

Fourth, to pick up and repair defective cable joints, junction boxes etc.

FOR THE ATTACK First, to run past the forts and attack vessels within the harbor.

Second, to drag for, pick up, and cut multiple and branch cables on the bottom or mine cables leading to buoyant mines or buoys.

Third, to sweep the channel: two submerged boats being connected by a light cable extending across all or a part of the mine field.

A discussion of the above and the conclusions and recommendations of the Board follow later.

The Board submits the following description of the boat:

The Protector (see print enclosed is a twin screw boat with a cigar-shaped shell 65 feet long and a maximum diameter of 11 feet 2 inches. Upon the hull proper is a light steel superstructure and a comparatively large conning tower about 6 1-2 feet high. The lower half of which is of steel, the upper of Tobin bronze. A monograph upon this boat, by Lieut. John Halligan, jr., United States Navy, giving a detailed description of the boat as far as can, at this time, be made public, and an estimate of the value of the submarine boat in war, from a naval point of view, is herewith enclosed.

From this detailed description by Lieutenant Halligan the following general description of the principal and characteristic features of the boat and their purposes is compiled:

The superstructure is provided for the following purposes:

First, to give buoyancy and seaworthiness in cruising trim.

Second, to provide stowage for fuel and air tanks outside of the spindle hull for reasons of safety and economy of space.

Third, to give deck room,thus contributing to habitability.

In the superstructure are carried S gasoline tanks with a combined capacity of 1.050 gallons: 6 high pressure air tanks with a combined capacity of 21 cubic feet: 2 lubricating-oil tanks with a combined capacity of 120 gallons and 4 low-pressure air tanks with a combined capacity of 12 1/2 cubic feet.

All gasoline tanks on the same side of the ship are connected with each other and with a copper service tank situated in the engine room abaft the engines, the supply to the service tanks being automatically regulated by means of a gauge and float.

The comparatively large conning tower is provided for the following purposes:

First, to provide a buoyancy moment well above the center of gravity, thus contributing to stability.

Second, to localize the control when submerged.

Third, to facilitate the surface navigation of the boat in comparatively rough seas.

Fourth, to provide a compass location, well removed from the magnetic influence of the spindle hull.

The conning tower carries a sighting hood and also an omniscope, affording an all-round view of the horizon. Within the tower is located nearly all of the controlling mechanism of the boat. When the boat is in cruising condition a detachable steering wheel and engine telegraphs are ship on top of the tower.

Within the steel hull are the engine, motor, and air-compressing room: 3 torpedo-discharge tube. 2 fore and 1 laft: a living room: a galley: a diving compartment: a storage-battery compartment, and water-baliast tanks, located fore, aft, and amidships.

The engines are two 4-cylinder, 4-cycle, 120 horsepower gasoline engines. For igniting the gasoline, three means are provided-a primary dry cell battery 0007 7, a magneto machine, a current from the storage batteries. With this combination no difficulty has been found in igniting the gasoline a common source of trouble with gasoline engines. Provision is made for using the engines in the third stage of submergence—i.e. with the sighting hood just out of water—the exhaust in this case being under water, air for the engines being supplied through a water-excluding valve in the top of the sighting hood.

The generator motors are two 6-pole shunt-wound dynamos, one on each main shaft line. When only the engines are being used for propulsion the armatures revolve freely, with brushes lifted, and serve as fly wheels on the shafts. Each motor has a rated capacity of 37 1/2 kilowatts at 125 (12 per cent) volts when driven at 200 revolutions per minute; a range of E.M.F. of from 80 to 160 volts and a current capacity of 300 amperes at full load, with a momentary capacity of 450 amperes.

The air compressor is located abaft the port engine, and is designed to compress 60 cubic feet of air per minute of 2100 pounds per square inch when running at 200 revolutions per minute. The principal feature of the compressor is its compactness, it being 47 inches long 22 inches wide, and 34 inches high, except at the high-pressure crosshead guides, which are 41 inches high.

The living room or crew space is located amidship and contains eight berths—four lower and four upper. The lower berths are in the nature of transoms, for which the upper berths, when lowered, form backs. Above and and behind the berths are lockers. A folding dining table is provided, for which the lower berths serve as seats. The room is also provided with two electric heaters, and and incandescent light system extends throughout the boat.

The galley is located abaft the living room and is provided with electric cooking stoves and washing facilities.

A water-closet is located in the after engine room.

Regarding the habitability of the boat, Lieutenant Halligan states: “In all respects save that of deckroom and under all conditions of weather, this boat provides greater comfort for the crew than the surface torpedo boats on which I have served.”

The diving compartment is located in the bow and is separated from the crew space by an air lock: and both it and the air lock are fitted with air and water tight doors. The compartment is fitted with a connection to the low-pressure air system and provided with a telephone communicating with the living room and a hydro-pneumatic gauge with two hands, one of which registers the pressure of the water outside due to the depth, and the other the air pressure in the compartment. At the bottom of the compartment is an iron door, which can be opened outward. To open the door the air-lock doors are first closed and then compressed air is admitted into the compartment until the gauge hands indicate the same pressure within and without the compartment. The door is then unfastened and then allowed to swing open thus giving in clear water a good view of the bottom.

The diving compartment provides for—

First, mine-cable cutting, or else repair of or burying mine cables and junction boxes.

Second, a way of escape for the crew in case of total disablement of of the boat.

Third, a channel for telephonic communication with shore when the boat is on picket duty.

The storage battery compartment is located mainly under the crew space and is suitably ventilated. The batteries consist of sixty Gould cells the over-all dimensions of the cells being about 36 by 19 by 17 inches. The total weight of the battery is about 76,000 pounds: its capacity is about 42 1/2 electrical horse-power for eight hours or 85 1/2 horse-power for three hours.

On the exterior of the boat are located four hydroplanes, a horizontal rudder, two wheels, two anchors, and a drop keel.

The hydroplanes are located two on each side, flush with the superstructure deck. They are operated in unison by means of a system of shafts and bell cranks from the coming tower. When the boat is running submerged the depth of submergence is controlled by balancing the reserve buoyancy with the downward thrust of the hydroplanes.

The horizontal rudder is also controlled, and by light means, from the conning tower.

The wheels are provided to meet the sea bottom in many localities, to be used as a guiding medium, to act as complementary to the diving compartment in cable and mire work, and to allow the boat to rest on the bottom in weathering a heavy storm. They are of iron 24 inches in diameter with 10-inch rims, and are housed in pockets along the keel.

The anchors weigh 500 pounds each, are located one forward and one aft in pockets on the keel, and are raised and lowered by means of electrical winches in the after end of the crew space, operated from the conning tower. The anchors, in addition to their use as such, serve as weights by which the control 0008 8of depth of submergence is obtained when not under way. When on picket duty, the boat by means of these anchors could rise for observation and submerge at will.

The drop keel consists of two castings with a combined weight of 10,000 pounds held in position by a shaft on which is shipped a wrench when the boat is submerged, the fastening of the two portions of the drop keel being such that a quarter turn of the wrench will release the entire weight, 10,000 pounds, in an emergency.

The general safety of the vessel and crew is contributed to largely by the boat's seaworthiness and stability. The following means are provided for insuring certainty of return to the surface from the submerged condition:

First, the reserve of buoyancy maintained while submerged. Second, emptying of ballast tanks by air pressure. Third, emptying of ballast tanks by power pumps. Fourth, emptying of ballast tanks by hand pumps. Fifth, release of two 500-pound anchor weights. Sixth, release of 10,000-pound drop keel. Seventh, escape of crew through the diving compartment.

Submergence, when the boat is at rest, is obtained either by taking in water ballast or by means of the anchor weights, as already stated: when the boat is in motion, it is obtained by means of the hydroplanes. When submerging with the hydroplanes the horizontal rudder is set to keep the vessel on approximately an even keel, compensating any eccentricity of longitudinal trim, due to distribution of weights. While running submerged there are no restrictions on the movements of the crew, and no great degree of skill is required to maintain a uniform depth of submergence.

Regarding the matter of submergence, Lieutenant Halligan states:

“The most remarkable feature in the performance of the Protector is the facility with which her depth of submergence is controlled, this being of particular interest, aside from its importance, in that it is one of the few qualities of the boat that was not developed in her predecessors (the Argonaut I and the Argonaut II).”

There are five stages of submergence, viz:

First. The normal cruising condition, with superstructure and ballast tanks empty. In this condition the superstructure deck is about 16 inches out of water.

Second. The war-time cruising condition, with superstructure filled and decks a wash.

Third. Superstructure filled and sufficient water in ballast tanks to submerge to the base of the sighting hood. This is the trim for submergence. A reserve buoyancy of about 280 pounds, corresponding to the volume of the sighting hood and omniscope, is maintained for all ordinary submergences. In this condition direct vision can be had through the sighting hood lenses. While under way in this condition, by depressing the hydroplanes two other conditions are assumed, namely:

Fourth. Submergence with nothing showing except the top of the omniscope.

Fifth. Complete submergence.

To pass from the first of these conditions to the second requires about fifteen minutes: from the second to the third about three minutes. Transition from one to another of the submerged conditions is almost at will, being well within the time required for an intelligent observation through the omniscope. This is of course, of primary importance, inasmuch as when within sight of an enemy it is intended to run completely submerged, except for occasional verifications of bearing and range through the omniscope.

Propulsion for the first three stages is by engines and motors, singly or combined: in the last three stages by motors alone.

The fact that in the third stage, by reason of an automatic induction valve in the top of the sighting hood, admitting air for the gasoline engines and excluding spray and water, the engines may be used, gives the boat a large cruising radius in this condition at comparatively high speed, and renders it likely that under many conditions of sea, light, and weather the boat may get within torpedo range without being seen in the event of the total disablement of her electrical equipment. In this case, of course, the omniscope would be housed, and the sighting hood of a neutral color could be discerned only with great difficulty. This feature assumes considerable importance when it is considered that the elements most liable to disability in the submarine boat of to-day are the storage battery and electrical equipment.

It is intended in the near future to extend this advantage by taking the air for induction through the top of the omniscope, so that the engines may be used almost to the exclusion of the motors, certainly until within a mile of the enemy.

No official timing of the speed of the Protector has yet been taken. According to unofficial timings, as entered in her log, her best speeds are as follows: 0009 9Light condition, engines and motors combined about 9 1/2 knots; light condition, engines only 8 1/2 knots. Submerged speeds have never been taken, but it is estimated that she will make, when completely submerged, between 6 and 7 knots.

As to her cruising radius, no records of fuel consumed by the engines have been kept, but from rough calculations, made during the longer runs of the Protector, the gasoline-tank capacity should give a cruising radius of 350 knots in the light condition, at full speed.

The board on January 20, 1904, visited the boat, which made a surface and submerged run, and carried out such evolutions as the board desired, and which follow below:

The board was on board from 10:15 a.m. to 4 p.m. From about 12 m. to 3 p.m. the boat was submerged, and from 12:40 to 2 p.m. the board was in the diving compartment, observing its operation and that of grappling for a cable.

No discomfort was experienced under the air pressure in the diving chamber, and the remaining part of the interior was quite as comfortable as any surface boat of its size would have been. Lunch was cooked and served while submerged.

PROGRAMME. First. Proceeded from Fort Adams some 3 miles up the bay in cruising condition, using engines.

Second. Passed from cruising to awash condition, housing all external fittings except a wooden mast installed for the naval test.

Third. Continued surface run in awash condition.

Fourth. Passed to submerged condition by filling ballast tanks.

Fifth. Maneuvered on the bottom of the bay by using storage battery and motors to propel the boat.

Sixth. Filled diving chamber with compressed air, opened door in bottom, and with a grapnel picked up a telephone cable by moving slowly over its approximate position.

Seventh. Passed from submerged to awash, and thence to cruising condition, and returned to Fort Adams by a surface run, using storage battery and motors.

In passing from the submerged to the awash condition, it was found that an ice floe had drifted over the boat, which, on rising, broke through the floe and emerged with its deck completely covered with some 8 inches of ice, which remained on the deck while passing to the cruising condition. It was also found that the wooden mast above mentioned, had been broken by the ice, while the boat was maneuvering under it.

The weather was very cold, the bay full of ice, and it would have been difficult to have chosen more adverse conditions for the test.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS-FOR THE DEFENSE. First and second, the board believes that this type of submarine boat is a most valuable auxiliary to the fixed-mine defense, and in cases where channels can not be mined owing to depth, rough water, swift tides, or width of channel it will give the nearest approach to absolute protection now known to the board. The boat can lie for an indefinite time adjacent to the point to be defended in either cruising, awash, or submerged condition, by its anchors, or on the bottom ready for instant use, and practically independent of the state of the water and in telephonic connection with the shore, or can patrol a mined or unmined channel invisible to the enemy and able to discharge its torpedoes at all times. It possesses the power of utilizing its engines in every condition except the totally submerged and can always charge its storage batteries while so doing, necessitating its return to shore only when gasoline must be replenished. In narrow channels the boat or boats would have a fixed position with a telephone cable buoyed or anchored at the bottom. In wide channels they would patrol or lie in mid-channel or where they could readily meet approaching vessels.

Third, as a picket or scout boat, outside the mine field or even at extreme range of gun fire, telephone communication can be sustained, and information received, and instructions sent for attacking approaching vessels.

Fourth, the test at Newport demonstrated the ease with which the boat can locate and pick up cables, and, with minor alterations in the present model, junction boxes, etc., can be taken into the diving compartment and repaired at leisure while absolutely protected from hostile interference. The faculty possessed by the boat of maneuvering of the bottom and sending out divers, leaves little or nothing to be desired in its facilities for doing this work.

FOR THE ATTACK. The boat shows great superiority over any existing means of attacking mine fields known to the board.

First, it can run by any field, as at present installed, with but little or no danger from the explosion of any particular mine or from gun fire, during the few seconds it exposes the sighting hood for observations, and can attack at its pleasure vessels in the harbor.

Gentlemen, I will state that Captain Lake has gone in a submarine from the entrance of Sandy Hook straight into New York Harbor absolutely unobserved and unknown by anybody, and it is entirely possible with the Holland or Lake boats, either one. I think, with a fleet of vessels guarding Sandy Hook, to send a submarine boat up and put a torpedo on the Battery dock and come away unknown to anyone, and escape in absolute and complete safety.

Second and third, the board personally witnessed the ease with which cables can be grappled, raised, and cut while the boat is maneuvering on the bottom; mine cables can be swept for, found, and cut, or a diver can be sent out for that purpose.

The crew of the boat is a skilled one, trained for its test in every way likely to be requested by the Naval Board. It should be noted that, with one exception, no seamen are used, this exception being the man who steers and handles the boat.

The crew is as follows: One navigator, who is also the diver; one chief engineer; one assistant engineer; one electrician; one machinist; one deck hand, and one cook.

The board recommends consideration of the foregoing by the General Staff. The question of the use of the Whitehead torpedoes as part of the fixed-mine defense, fired from tubes on shore, is now receiving consideration. Where channels are wide and water swift, this use of the Whitehead will be very limited. With boats of this type the Whitehead can, it is believed, be carried within certain effective range in all ordinary channels, and this alone will warrant the consideration asked for.

Now, understand this is the board appointed by the Secretary of War to examine both boats. They did examine them and they made this report to the General Staff. Now, gentlemen, just one minute; just suspend conversation for half a minute. I am going to say something I am not authorized to say. This was a unanimous report to the General Staff. The General Staff of the Army have had this matter under consideration for the last five days, and the committee has reported, but I am not at liberty to say what that report is. I understand, however, that they recommend to the joint board of the Army and the Navy to take the whole subject under consideration in time for action at this session.

Mr. FOSS. That is the joint board?

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. The joint board of the Army and Navy. It is not necessary for this House to get excited over this question in the slightest degree. It is in good hands, and it is being fairly and fully considered by both parties. I am simply giving information as far as I have got it. Now, what was their recommendation?

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be given five minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask that the gentleman have five minutes longer.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts asks that the gentleman from Connecticut be given unanimous consent to continue for five minutes. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

The board recommends, in consequence of its conclusions, that five of these boats be purchased for use in submarine defense, as follows:

Mr. BRICK. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt the gentleman to ask which boat?

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. The Lake boat.

Mr. BRICK. The report says five boats. To which boat does it refer?

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. The Lake boat.

One for the School of Submarine Defense for experimental work, one for the eastern entrance of Long Island Sound, one for the entrance to Chesapeake Bay, one for San Francisco Harbor, and one for Puget Sound.

The necessity for this kind of defense in the four localities named needs no demonstration to those acquainted with them.

There being no further business before it, the board then adjourned sine die. Arthur Murray, Major, Artillery Corps, President. C. J. Bailey, Captain, Artillery Corps, Member. C. F. Parker, Captain, Artillery Corps, Recorder. Appendix A. [Copy of telegram.] Fort Totten, N. Y., January 14, 1904. Adjutant General, U. S. Army, Washington, D. C.: Request telegraphic authority for board convened by paragraph 5, Special Order 20, 1903, to proceed Newport, R. I. No test of Protector possible heretofore. Boat now ready at Newport. Mr. Lake desires test there immediately. Board concurs. Murray, President Board. A true copy. C. J. BAILEY, Captain, Artillery Corps.

Appendix B. [Copy of telegram.] Washington, D. C., January 14, 1904. Maj. Arthur Murray, Artillery Corps, Fort Totten, Willets Point, N. Y.: Secretary War directs as necessary for public service members of board, consisting of yourself and Capts. Charles J. Bailey and Charles F. Parker, Artillery Corps, proceed to Newport, R. I., on official business pertaining to test of submarine torpedo boat Protector, and on completion duty return proper station. Petit, Assistant Adjutant-General. A true copy. C. J. Bailey, Captain, Artillery Corps.

Now, gentlemen, that is a unanimous report. Now, I do not think I am revealing any secret when I say, since the six Lake boats were bought and paid for—-

Mr. ROBERTS. You mean Holland boats.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Yes; since the six Holland boats were bought and paid for by the government the naval boards have recommended changes in them to the extent of about $10,000 each, copying identically in many respects the principles of construction of the Lake boat. We already have eight Holland boats. My constituents have shown that they are a company of gentlemen who are not only financially able but who actually have spent three or four hundred thousand dollars of their own money.

The chairman of the committee yesterday spoke of the Katahdin and other experiments which have gone to the naval scrap heap. These gentlemen did not ask for an advance order. They have delivered to you a completed instrument, which the Army itself says is the best method of defense in the world. Now, why do I make this amendment to strike out these five boats? I think we ought to have them. I think we had better have the Holland than not have any. But why do I propose to strike out these five in this bill? This thing is an experiment, practically, yet, notwithstanding this magnificent report which will be put in here. England and France to-day have gone beyond the mere defense; the Protector is beyond that. I heard Governor Voorhees, of New Jersey, counsel for the Protector, challenging the Navy Department to a 250 mile run at sea with one of their boats, and in rough 0012 12water at that. What I would like to see done is this: This appropriation should be $850,000, with full discretion given the Secretary of the Navy to use it as he sees fit; and what I would like to have him do—

Mr. FOSS. In that connection may I ask the gentleman a question?

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Certainly.

Mr. FOSS. Whether or not the gentleman would think it advisable to reappropriate that $500,000 of last year?

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. I do if it is necessary. I did not suppose it was necessary. I supposed it was a continuing appropriation until used.

Mr. FOSS. The Secretary came before our committee—

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. I would ask the chairman of the committee himself to make that motion. It will cost nothing if we do not spend it.

Mr. BENNY. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. I have only two minutes left.

Mr. BENNY. I simply wanted to ask the gentleman what time this challenge that he speaks of was made.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. October 15 of last year, or about that date.

Mr. FOSS. I would like to ask the gentleman from Connecticut whether this amendment leaves it in the discretion of the Secretary?

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. I understand so absolutely. I will ask the gentleman from Massachusetts if he does not understand that his amendment leaves it also within the discretion of the Secretary?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, the language of the committee has not been altered in the slightest degree by my amendment, and will give the discretion to the Secretary of the Navy. The committee voted to make it mandatory on the Secretary, provided the boats would meet certain tests. My amendment leaves it there, and I hope the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut will leave it there also.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. I propose that it shall. Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to close by saying that my purpose in striking out this item and leaving it discretionary with the Secretary of the Navy is to meet a similar course of action in foreign governments. I hold in my hand the report of the French submarine office, and in both France and England they have started to build submarine boats of 400 tons each—practically ocean cruisers—with a radius of 3,000 miles and a speed of 12 to 15 miles an hour. Gentleman, one such boat on the Atlantic coast and one in the Gulf would supersede all the coast defenses and render invasion of this country by a foreign power absolutely impossible. In my judgment it will not cost over a million dollars for both.

Now, if this is possible, if the method of defense has reached the point where it can be so handled, let the Secretary of the Navy have full discretion in regard to the matter. We appropriate millions and hundreds of millions of dollars here; and I think honestly, if the rest of the Members are in the same position as I am, we know very little about where the money goes or what the millions are expended for. Surely we can trust the Hon. W.H. Moody with the largest liberty in the use of this appropriation. [Here the hammer fell.]

APPENDIX THE ARMY AND THE SUBMARINE—A NEW PHASE OF THE QUESTION—WHAT A MILITARY BOARD HAS RECOMMENDED—A RIDE BENEATH AN ICE-COVERED SEA. [For the Times-Democrat.] The War Department is now in possession of a report from an especially appointed board of experts recommending the purchase of a number of the highest type of American submarines for military purposes. To the lay mind this may seem to be a military trespass upon a naval preserve, but from the viewpoint of the board there are many of the soundest reasons for this novel proposition.

The submarine defenses of our seaports come under army control. The day was when these defenses were strictly passive, consisting only of explosive mines of various sorts anchored in the fairway of channels or navigable approaches to our harbors. To-day the Army has added the dirigible and the automobile torpedo to its province of subaquatic defense, and now, as the logical expansion of these torpedoes, comes the submarine, which, in effect, is really a movable mine field possessing a scope of application far in advance of anything else extant.

The military authorities have not suddenly jumped to this conclusion, however; they have watched the evolution of the submarine with growing interest. When the boats now in the Navy were tested, a board of military officers from Willetts Point was present, but the performance of that type did not commend itself to those experts as promising anything desirable for military adaptation. Within the past eight months, though, the practical achievements of an entirely different order of American submarine has changed the whole complexion of the question. The vessel that has worked this revolution is Simon Lake's submarine, the Protector. The boat has fulfilled every promise made by her inventor, and she has placed the submarine upon a really substantial basis of precision and practicability. The French, with their fairly efficient “submersibles,” must now take second place in the world's record along this line. This is not the mere say so of promoters. It is the official dictum of naval experts at the United States torpedo station at Newport, who have both seen and been aboard the craft during her maneuvers, the subject of official report by military expert authorities, and the consequence of generally well-known performances.

On the 19th of January, just past, a military board, composed of Maj. Arthur Murray and Captains Parker and Bailey, from the School of Submarine Defense at Fort Totten, N. Y., reached Newport, where the Protector still awaits trial by the naval board of inspection, to put that vessel through a series of maneuvers to determine her peculiar usefulness to the Army. The day was one calculated to put the vessel to the severest test. The temperature was some degrees below zero, and the wind that blew over the water cut into the bared skin as though laden with myriads of tiny knife blades. The water was covered with large floes of heavy ice. Apart from the submarine maneuvering powers of the craft, which, of course, had conditions against them, it was a day of all days to establish beyond question the habitability of the boat. Before, however, we take up the day's performance, let us see what was the board's outline of the possible field of usefulness for the Protector. Coming as this schedule does from experts, their opinion commands especial consideration. The scope of adaptation is two-fold—to assist in the defense and to assist the attack.

Under the heading “To assist in the defense,” the board considered the Protector applicable in no fewer than five important particulars:

1. To supplement or even to supplant fixed mines by lying adjacent to the forts and from that position to attack vessels attempting to run past, the mobility of the submarine, with her battery of Whitehead torpedoes, making her at once a torpedo craft and a movable mine field capable of meeting any possible change of direction of an approaching foe.

2. To supplement the fixed mines by attacking vessels that may be approaching the mine field or such as may have succeeded in crossing the danger zone unharmed. This provides an instant remedy to imperfect mines that may have become temporarily disabled, either by accident or the cutting of their battery connections by the foe.

3. To lie outside or to seaward of the mine fields at a distance of 10,000 yards (something over 5 1/2 miles), in telephonic communication with the forts by means of a cable—either buoyed or attached to an anchor —the position of which is known to the submarine by cross-bearings or any other convenient means of secret location. This of course means using the diving compartment of the boat as a telephone station by bringing the cable inboard through the bottom door. In this capacity the Protector and her kind would serve as picket boats, giving the military base ashore an advance point of observation 5 miles and more seaward, and giving it power of attack—by direction to the boat—where the enemy might deem himself secure from danger.

4. To serve as a patrol for the under-water examination of our own mine fields, to overhaul the cable lines, and to prevent countermining by an enemy's submarines, if he should have a type permitting such work.

5. Serve as a repair boat, by picking up defective joints, junction boxes, etc., and taking them into the diving compartment for overhauling and fixing.

The last two of these functions would permit of operations under weather conditions prohibitive to the working of surface boats using divers, and, too, would afford a scope of application now denied the present mining facilities.

Under the heading “To assist the attack,” the operations trench upon those now assigned the Navy, but their usefulness may be just as legitimately military.

1. To drag for, pick up, and cut multiple and branch cables while submerged. In brief, this means the countermining of an enemy's mine fields by cutting their battery connections and thus rendering them inoperative. It must be borne in mind that mine fields are generally protected from surface attempts to countermine by batteries of rapid-fire guns that cover every avenue of approach. To undertake to countermine such fields by any of the methods heretofore in vogue is, in effect, the leading of a forlorn hope, with well-nigh every chance desperately against success. The Protector, on the other hand, brings a new instrument to the work-one that can operate with absolute security and concealment under cover of the water.

2. To find and to cut individual mine cables while submerged. This is only a particular application of No. 1 and means the undermining of those cables which lead to the firing batteries, to sever which renders a set or group of mines harmless.

3. To sweep an enemy's mine fields wholesale by the use of two submarines. In this case the submarines would approach the field on a parallel course, with a stout wire cable dragging between them, and in that way displace and explode the mines guarding a channel.

4. While in a submerged condition, to run past land batteries and to attack vessels lying seemingly secure inside the fortifications.

The primary work called for by the army beard on the 19th of January was evidence of the boat's ability to run submerged at various depths of control, to run upon the bottom, etc., to operate the diving compartment by opening the bottom door and picking up a cable that had been laid some time. The successful accomplishment of these easily presaged the practical application of the craft in the several directions outlined by the board's schedule.

The Protector reported at Fort Adams, Newport, at 10 o'clock of the morning, and after an hour spent at the wharf, during which the entire board, a couple of resident officers, and Mr. Lake and one of the crew went into the diving compartment to show its operation while the vessel was in surface trim. With this done, the craft was headed up the bay, and sent over the measured-mile course at full speed. When about 2 miles above Jamestown, the boat was stripped for a submerged run in every particular save the housing of the stout signal mast, which is carried as a peace-time warning to approaching vessels.

With everything in readiness, the superstructure was filled with its thirty tons of water, and down she settled with her deck even with the water. Now the conning-tower hatch was closed and sealed, there was the sound of rushing air through the pipes, and gradually, on an even keel, the entire craft settled below the surface, the argus-eyed omniscope alone remaining above. Through this instrument, however, a complete sweep of the horizon could be had and normal vision assured for the correct determination of distances, a necessary factor to efficiency and safety heretofore missing in all of the observing instruments aboard submarines here and abroad. Below in the body of the boat there was silence, broken as the gong rang for slow speed ahead. There was a sharp hiss as the electric switches closed the circuit at the switchboard, and then the low hum of the motors told that the boat was under way.

Outside, through the deadlights of the conning tower, was a seemingly jellied mass of luminous green, but no sound came from the passing water save the chug-chug of the screws of a distant steamer. After maneuvering for a while for a good position, the boat sank upon the bottom and her riding wheels, at a point about half a mile to the north and at right angles to the lead of a telephone cable running under water between Newport and Jamestown. As soon as the boat had found the bottom Mr. Lake, one of the engineers, and two of the army board went into the diving chamber. The vessel was in about 35 feet of water. Air from the low-pressure system was let in until the dial with the double index showed a balance between the air pressure inside and the water pressure outside. A little cork in the bottom door verified the reading of the gauge. Then the securing hooks were removed and the big steel door opened. For a moment there was the sound of flowing water like the chug-chug of a giant demijohn, and then all was silence again as the sea halted at the lower edge of the open doorway.

The grapnel was now lowered into the water and the vessel started ahead under one bell. Outside the bottom could be seen with more or less distinctness, and every now and then a passing rock seemed to threaten to come unpleasantly 0015 15near to the doorway. The bottom was thick mud, into which the cable had buried, while the numerous rocks, ranging from a few inches to 4 or 5 feet, made the test as difficult as one might well imagine. Every now and then the line would taunten with a stiff pull, only to disappoint, as it relaxed as the grapnel freed itself. Finally there was a strong lasting tug that brought the boat to a standstill. Slowly the vessel was backed and the slack of the wire rope wound in on the drum, and when the length had been overrun there lay the telephone cable in the jaw of the grapnel. To have brought it aboard and tied something on it in token of the performance, as had been done a week before, would have been but the work of a few moments, but the object lesson was complete as it stood. In time of war to have cut an enemy's communications by submarine cable would have been just as easy and just as secure, and to have picked up a telephone cable and to have opened a line of communication ashore would have been equally practicable.

It was pretty chilling work in that compartment, and, after an hour and a half of it, the members of the board were glad to get back into the warm main body of the boat, where, in the living space, had been spread a bountiful dinner cooked aboard on electric stoves while they toiled in the diving chamber. After dinner the boat was brought to the surface, and up she came through a field of ice from 6 to 12 inches thick. Her signal mast was smashed, but no other damage done, and picturesque she looked, indeed, as she lay there, her deck piled high with tons of ice, and her conning tower, with its deadlights, looking like the bluff head of some great marine monster. Out of the surrounding ice, however, she broke her way with a ponderous crunching sound that told the story of the power in her driving engines. The sun was low in the west as the boat started homeward, but the hearts of all were filled with exultation and pride in that day's achievement.

The logical application of the craft should be plain to the tyro now, but its significance can best be understood after what Major Murray said when he declared, “The Protector is at once a power for good and a menace, a friend and a possible foe. As a friend, the craft widens in many ways the present field of the submarine mine, and, as a foe, she completely upsets at one fell stroke all that we have accomplished in that direction after years of careful and persistent study.”

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that, having heard the representatives of those interested in these two different types of boats, we ought to have a word said in regard to the policy of a majority of the committee in reference to this controversy. I have not the slightest doubt—and I think I have read about everything on submarine torpedo boats—I have not any doubt in the world that several years ago when we appropriated for eight of the Holland submarine torpedo boats and substantially put in a million and a quarter or a million and a half dollars, that we bought a type of boat that has already been superseded. I do not believe that after a thorough and careful examination of the merits of the two boats, the Lake and the Holland, any fair-minded man can say otherwise than that the Lake is a great advance over the Holland, and that the Holland is now antiquated.

Since the purchase of the Holland boats there has been no improvement upon them. We tried to tow two of them from Newport to Annapolis, and they happened to strike a storm, and two of them were disabled, to what extent we do not know, nor how much it will cost to repair them. The position taken by those who have asked Congress to go slow in this matter has been fully justified by the very argument that the gentleman from Connecticut has made, and that is that this is an experimental business. I have on my desk here a circular of a subsurface torpedo boat. That is another and different invention for this same method of warfare. That is being developed. They will come to Congress and push their invention. The policy of the committee has been to put a sum of money into the hands of the Secretary of the Navy and allow him to use it, so to speak, in the development of the science of submarine and subsurface warfare.

I do not believe, and I do not know that I will ever believe, that 0016 16submarine and subsurface warfare will be an effective warfare. I believe it is against common sense and common reason to say that you can put a man under water, deprive him of the sense of sight, of the sense of protection that comes when he can see, and make a fighting instrument out of him equal to a man who stands protected upon the surface, who sees with his eyes and hears and can use all of his senses.

Mr. SIBLEY. Will the gentleman pardon me for an interruption?

Mr. DAYTON. Certainly.

Mr. SIBLEY. Is it not a fact that the Navy Department in years past has stood where you do when you say that you do not believe it possible for this warfare to be effective? I want to ask the gentleman if the Department as such has not been steadily against any submarine development, and if he thinks it wise to give to these hostile opinions the entire discretion as to whether or not such a class of defense shall be constructed?

Mr. DAYTON. In answer to the gentleman, I want to say this: The Department has not to the extent indicated by his question been antagonistic to the development of submarine warfare. The position they have taken has been that they were perfectly willing and desirous of developing any methods of attack or any methods of defense. Therefore, years ago they made an appropriation that enabled Mr. Holland to develop his boats. He simply took as his prototype the old Peacemaker, that did just the same feats the Holland boat has done, and then finally tipped over and went to the bottom of the sea and was abandoned. But the anxiety of these people to get a sale of their boats has brought this question constantly before Congress.

The very men who have charge of these boats, the men that must be responsible for them after the development has been brought to us, have opposed them as not yet being perfected. Admiral o'Neil has been opposed to them. They are under the control of his department. Admiral Melville has been opposed to them, and he is the recently retiring Chief of Engineers of the service and gave immense study to the question. Admiral Bowles, the late constructor of the Navy, in the strongest terms condemned these boats and told us that the price demanded for them was exorbitant, that their patents amounted to nothing, and that the Government itself ought to build these boats in order to experiment with them. So that those who have been responsible so far have been against the purchase of these boats, and they were substantially purchased against the will of the Department.

Mr. SIBLEY. Will the gentleman permit another question?

Mr. DAYTON. Yes.

Mr. SIBLEY. Is it not a fact that the Navy Department as a Department condemned and ridiculed the Monitor when it was proposed? I think my friend from Connecticut [Mr. SPERRY] could give a little evidence along that line. I am glad that the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. DAYTON] admits that these officers have been opposed to the submarine boat. I think they have modified their views. I heard one of the gentlemen whose names have been mentioned—

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I must object. I want to go on.

Mr. FOSS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from West Virginia will permit, I would like to say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SIBLEY] that Admiral o'Neil, the Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance, has written quite an elaborate article upon 0017 17the question of whether or not the Navy Department was opposed to the construction of the Monitor, and that that is a matter which is in quite serious dispute.

Mr. WM. ALDEN SMITH. Brother SPERRY says he put up the money.

Mr. DAYTON. Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted, I want to say this—

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my time be extended.

Mr. FOSS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from West Virginia may be permitted to continue for ten minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois asks unanimous consent that the gentleman from West Virginia may be permitted to continue for ten minutes. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. DAYTON. I have prepared this statement so that it may be succinct as possible, and may state the present condition of this matter before the Navy Department.

Mr. WM. ALDEN SMITH. Will the gentleman permit a question?

Mr. DAYTON. Yes.

Mr. WM. ALDEN SMITH. Is it not a fact that certain officers of the Navy, well known and of ability, have approved this form of naval warfare?

Mr. DAYTON. Oh, yes; there is no question of doubt about that.

Mr. WM. ALDEN SMITH. Who were they?

Mr. DAYTON. There is no question but that a number of officers have approved it and a number of them have disapproved it. Some of the strongest naval officers in the service disapprove it. There are very many officers who believe that it is too dangerous. Certain it is that two of our boats have been over there in San Francisco Harbor, and, while under the charge of a very able young lieutenant, have not yet gone submerged beyond the Golden Gate. There has never been any experiment in deep water with the type that we now have and there never has been a sailing radius extending beyond 25 miles.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the gentleman pardon an interruption?

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAYTON. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. The gentleman states that the two boats in San Francisco Harbor have never been beyond the Golden Gate.

Mr. DAYTON. I am so informed.

Mr. ROBERTS. Has the gentleman seen the report from Lieutenant MacArthur, son of General MacArthur, in charge of one of those boats, giving his experience miles outside of the Golden Gate? That report is now on file in the Navy Department.

Mr. DAYTON. I have not seen any such report and am informed to the contrary.

Mr. ROBERTS. I have seen a copy of the report and I know it is there, telling that he has been miles outside of Golden Gate, and in a heavy sea.

Mr. DAYTON. I think the gentleman will find that he is mistaken.

Mr. ROBERTS. I am not mistaken.

Mr. DAYTON. Oh, Mr. Chairman, I will not yield to the gentleman. The gentleman has made his statement. I am informed 0018 18differently from the Department; that is all I can say. Now the condition in regard to this matter is this. There is in the Navy Department a board of construction consisting of some of the bureau chiefs. Up to this time that board has been adverse to the purchase of any more submarine torpedo boats, because of the fact that there was difficulty in taking care of those that they had. It would involve additional expenditure to prepare slips and protection for them, because they readily deteriorate; and further, the board wanted to experiment with them to ascertain their full value.

There is also an army board. And this is a matter which, it may turn out, is for the army rather than the naval bill. If the scope of these submarines is to be mining and coast defense, then comes the question whether or not it is the part of the Navy to have anything to do with the matter or whether it is the part of the Army to take charge as under the head of fortifications. And the army board has as the gentleman from Connecticut well sets forth, taken up this question and is considering it with that view. I believe, from the report as read, they have recommended that it shall be under army supervision as a distinct coast defense—a mining defense under their jurisdiction, and not under that of the Navy Department.

If that be true, then there ought not to be any further appropriation for these submarine torpedo boats as a part of the naval establishment, because the use of the Navy for these boats would be substantially in deep water as a complement to its fighting fleet.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Does the gentleman think that because we build monitors and coast defenses, they should be turned over to the Army, too?

Mr. DAYTON. The condition of the monitor is entirely different from that of the submarine boat. Its base of supply, comparatively speaking, is on board its hull, while, as I understand the report, the base of supply for gasoline to run a submarine torpedo boat is on shore. A Holland boat can not run more than 25 miles from the shore, and then has to go back and get its new supply.

Mr. FITZGERALD rose.

Mr. DAYTON. I decline to be interrupted further. I do not want to get into a discussion which may lead me away from what I started to do, which was to make a statement of the situation as it is before the Department.

In addition, I say to the naval board, which has been opposed thus far to any further purchase of these boats, the army board has made its report, and states that the purchase of the Lake boat, with reference to the defense of the coast, is one within army jurisdiction. This matter referred to a joint board of the Army and Navy, to make full and complete investigation of the matter, to settle, I suppose, the use of these boats, and under which jurisdiction, and of what type they shall be constructed, and how many of them shall be constructed.

Within the next few weeks there will be a report of a special board of inspection appointed by the Navy Department to carry on these tests on boats already presented; and we want to hear from that board before we go headlong into the purchase of these boats.

Now, Mr. Chairman, on this matter I take the liberty of submitting this statement, which I believe to give the exact epitome of the situation.

The authorization by the Congress for the building of additional submarine boats of the Holland type is ill advised and not conducive to naval efficiency for the following reasons:

1. The joint board of army and navy officers, composed of experts of the General Staff of the Army and of the General Board of the Navy, and of which Admiral Dewey is president, is now specially considering the question of the utilization of the submarines for coast-defense purposes. The number, character, and size of such boats are now being specially considered, and it is simply embarrassing these military experts to authorize such construction of submarines at the present time.

2. Within the next six weeks the board of inspection of the Navy will commence conducting an extended series of competitive tests to determine the merits and defects of the Holland and Lake designs of submarines. The board of inspection have been giving special consideration to this subject during the past year, and they have prescribed tests and conditions which will secure for the Navy Department and for the Congress special information upon disputed points.

3. The Navy Department has been in possession of one Holland boat for over three years. Two of such boats have been possessed by the Government one year, while the remaining five have been in commission from six to nine months. Not one of them has ever been tested in rough weather and off the coast or under the actual conditions for which they were designed to operate. In a land-locked harbor, where the water is shallow and where the bottom is muddy, and by reason of the fact that the hulls of the vessels are exceedingly strong, no harm has resulted from the bow of the vessel striking the bottom. If such experiments had taken place, however, off a rocky coast or in deep water we should probably have been without any submarines.

4. It has been shown that the radius of action of the boats, when electrically propelled, is about 25 sea miles. As every blockading fleet must keep at least 7 or 8 miles off the coast, and as the shore fortifications are generally about 10 or 12 miles from the center of important cities, the boats of the Holland type could hardly leave their base under electric power without running down before reaching the probable field of action.

5. The boats have shown their unseaworthiness. It was attempted last fall to tow the Adder and the Moccasin from Newport to Norfolk. Both of these submarines were cast on the coast, and as a result their storage batteries are undoubtedly ruined, and it will take about six months and half their appraised value to put them in efficient condition.

6. The whole tendency in Europe is to build submarines of increased tonnage, and the boats projected are practically of a design that has been discarded by the French experts. The tendency in submarine construction is to give increased habitability and to extend the radius of action, and it is actually delaying naval construction of submarines to continue building a type that has not proved serviceable.

7. Although the Navy Department has two of the Holland boats on the Pacific coast, not one of these submarines has yet attempted to pass out the Golden Gate. The boats possess an extremely able and efficient commander, but he has found the boats so unstable that he has yet dared to operate in other than shallow water.

8. The attitude of the Navy Department has been aptly expressed by Admiral Dewey in his letter to the House Naval Committee 0020 20wherein he stated that the Department should not commit itself to the building of any one type, but that an approved design should be adopted only after competitive tests and trials.

9. The present stage of the submarine-boat controversy is specially pleasing to the Navy Department. One private firm at their own cost has built a submarine boat, and has officially requested to have it fully and completely tested in competition with the type possessed by the Government. The report of the board selected by the Navy Department to conduct such tests can be expected within two or three months, and there is no doubt but that such report will contain information of exceeding value, and suggest lines of construction which should be demanded by the Navy Department.

10. Not one of the mechanical weaknesses of the Holland submarine boat that were pointed out by Admirals Melville and Bowles have yet been overcome. There has been no change in the design or character of the gasoline engine. The storage battery is so installed that the pounding of the sea will impair its efficiency. There has been no improvement as regards stability. The boat is still “blind,” since the range of vision of the Holland submarine boat is only about 15 degrees. The boat is lacking in speed, and it is so tender under diving conditions that the different members of the crew can barely move from a fixed position when the boat is engaged in submerging or rising to the surface.

11. As the Navy Department now possesses eight of these boats, reliable information is being furnished as to their military value, efficiency, and endurance. So far as the naval experts are concerned, there is a weaker call for them than was made a year ago; and this is due to the fact that the actual performance of the boat has not been of such character as to convince the Navy Department officials that their development has been sufficiently satisfactory to regard the boat as efficient weapons of naval warfare.

12. With the joint board of army and navy experts specifically investigating the problem of the submarine as a weapon of defense, with the Navy Department making preparations to carry on an extended series of competitive tests, with the several chiefs of bureaus of the Navy Department analyzing the regular reports forwarded by the commanders of the various submarine boats, and with various experts throughout the Navy giving special consideration to the problem, it would seem as if it would be wisdom upon the part of the Congress to delay consideration of the matter for six months, when some reliable data will be at the disposal of the committee.

Mr. WILLIAM W. KITCHIN obtained the floor.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. If the gentleman will pardon me a moment, I should like to offer a further amendment. If it be offered now, the gentleman can speak to the whole question. I wish to offer this as a substitute for the amendment already pending.

Mr. WILLIAM W. KITCHIN. That is all right; go ahead.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. As a substitute for the amendment now pending, I offer what I sent to the desk.

The Clerk as follows:

The Secretary of the Navy is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to contract for or purchase subsurface or submarine torpedo boats in the aggregate of, but not exceeding, $850,000: Provided. That prior to said purchase or contract for said boats any American inventor or owner of a subsurface or submarine torpedo boat may give reasonable notice and have his, her, or its 0021 21subsurface or submarine torpedo boat tested by comparison or competition, or both, with a Government subsurface or submarine torpedo boat of any private competitor, provided there be any such, and thereupon the board appointed for conducting such tests shall report the result of said competition or comparison, together with its recommendations, to the Secretary of the Navy, who may purchase or contract for the subsurface or submarine torpedo boats in a manner, that will best advance the interests of the United States in submarine warfare: And provided further. That before any subsurface or submarine torpedo boat is purchased or contracted for it shall be accepted by the Navy Department as fulfilling all reasonable requirements for submarine warfare and shall have been fully tested to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Navy. To carry out the purpose aforesaid the sum of $850,000 is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and to make up said sum of $850,000 the sum of $500,000 carried, or such part thereof, as may remain unexpended and authorized in the naval appropriation act approved March 3, 1903, is hereby reappropriated.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I will state for the benefit of the gentleman from North Carolina, although doubtless he knows it already, that this is the precise language of last year's bill, except that the sum of $850,000 has been changed to $850,000.

Mr. FOSS. And let me further add that it also provides for the reappropriation of the $500,000.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Yes; it reappropriates $500,000 as a part of the $850,000.

Mr. FOSS. Authorized in the act of last year, but not used, or least only a small part of it used.

Mr. WILLIAM W. KITCHIN. Mr. Chairman, I believe that Congress ought to do something positive and direct in the line of acquiring submarine boats. Congress ought to give great respect to the recommendations of the Navy Department, but ought not to confine its deliberations to those recommendations. We are charged with the defense of the country and ought to shape the policy of the Government in regard to its Navy. I am informed that when the first great battle between ironclads was fought, which revolutionized the naval warfare of the world, Congress had not accepted and the naval authorities had not approved the Monitor. She fought as private property. It is no new thing for the Navy Department to be against things they did not originate. The question is not and ought not to be whether the Department favors this, but whether it meets our judgment.

Now, is it not a business-like proposition to increase our submarine force? England is to-day building ten submarines. She has nine already built. France is to-day building ten submarines. France has already built thirty. Germany is building submarines; other nations are building submarines. We ought to declare it now to be the policy of this country to build enough submarines in the next few years to fully defend the important harbors of the United States.

They furnish the cheapest and most effective means of defense that human ingenuity has yet devised.

The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Dayton] asks, “Can you see to fight under water? Can you do much destruction when you have to travel under water?” Ah, gentlemen, you might as well ask, “Can one wait in the darkness of night and destroy his approaching enemy?” The very fact that it does go under the water, the very fact that it does act almost as an assassin, accounts for its danger. It is that fact that disturbs the brain of every commander. It is that fact, as Admiral Dewey has said, that would enable two of these submarines to defend the harbor of Galveston against the navies of the world. It is a cheap defense; it is a quick defense. You gentlemen who have been 0022 22talking about having a great navy to maintain the integrity of the United States, who are afraid of foreign countries, who want to be prepared for war, in the exercise of good judgment in this way you can have a complete defense, quickly and economically. I state as my judgment, having studied this question, that for one-half of the money carried in this bill for the increase of the Navy you can build enough submarine boats completely to defend every important harbor in the United States.

I have no choice between the two submarine boats advocated here. I want the best. I do not care which one the Navy gets, and I do not care if the Navy refuses them both and constructs its own marines. In fact, if the companies do not sell us submarines at proper prices I should prefer that the Government, taking charge of their patents if necessary, with adequate compensation to them, should construct a submarine boat building plant and build our own submarines. What I want is complete and cheap defense for the coasts of the United States, then you will not need your big boats for coast defense. They will not have to hug our shores for our protection. Your battle ships can leave these harbors then with the complete assurance that they are protected and go to fight the enemy on other seas.

Whether submarines ought to be under the head of fortifications or not does not go to the merits of the proposition. These boats will be commanded by officers of the Navy, and while this fortification idea may be used for delay and to defer action upon it, I believe that calm consideration will make you believe that they ought to be under the Navy Department as a part of the Navy, and not under the War Department as fortifications.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. WILLIAM W. KITCHIN. I should like to have five minutes more. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina asks unanimous consent that he be allowed to continue his remarks for five minutes. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. WILLIAM W. KITCHIN. They say the present submarine is not perfected and that soon it will be out of date. Why gentlemen, at League Island you will find ships, monitors, and rams that once were thought to be great, and yet now they are out of date. Naval construction is progressive.

The battle ship itself is not perfect. The time will soon come when the proudest battle ship afloat to-day will be out of date. When anybody uses that argument, trying to delay and defer submarine defense, I conclude that his opposition is deeper, and that he is opposed to the submarine boat in principle. This belief is strengthened when I remember that the Monitor and the Merrimac were not perfect, not equal to the Kentucky or the Kearsarge, and yet our predecessors did not stop the construction of ironclads on account of their deficiencies. It is no argument to say that these submarine boats are not perfect.

The question is. Are they now capable of defending our coasts? Gentlemen admit that one type of these boats can go out 75 miles without coming back to the shore, and that another type can go out 25 miles. Now, does not such ability prove them to be effective in defending a harbor? But the gentleman from Massachusetts has shown far greater merit in them than a radius of 25 miles. No squadron could blockade a port defended by them. They carry the same torpedoes that other boats use. The torpedoes 0023 23carry their own motive power. Their effect is the same whether they are let loose from a regular torpedo boat or from a submarine. The motive power of each separate torpedo carries it to the enemy's ship. The trials of submarine boats up to this time, as stated by the gentleman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Massachusetts, have shown that they are effective in approaching the enemy and discharging the torpedo; that they can elude the keenest vigilance of those on guard; that they have even gone into harbors unseen, though carefully watched for, and have gotten near enough to vessels to have destroyed them without being discovered. What more can you ask?

If you want to defend our harbors and want that defense to be effective and economical, in the interest of our seacoast cities and in the interest of the American people, it seems to me you can reach but one conclusion, and that is that the Congress ought to give positive and direct instructions to its Navy Department to proceed along the line of acquiring the best submarine boats. For the reasons I have given, we ought to adopt a direct and positive amendment.

In addition to the submarines, I am in favor of more torpedo boats of the kind with the greatest speed and most effective for the destruction of an enemy's ships. I believe in such smaller craft, which will accomplish more for the purposes of defense than a battle ship or armored cruiser. The price of one battle ship will build a dozen torpedo boats and it will build twenty-five submarines, but a battle ship would not be half so effective in defending a harbor as a half dozen of either kind of these smaller boats.

Mr. BRANDEGEE. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be heard but one or two moments upon this question. I simply want to say this: It seems to me that we are in a position to learn a good deal in the near future, by actual experience, of the comparative merits of large ships as compared with small vessels in naval warfare. It may be, therefore, it would be the part of prudence not to be stampeded into making any very large appropriation for a type of boats which are yet in a more or less experimental stage, and which have been very little tested in actual fighting conditions, and none at all upon the high seas. It seems to me that we may rely upon the patriotism and efficiency of our Navy Department and our general board to do the right thing in protecting the harbors of this country.

I believe that they are better judges of what is needed than Members of this House, no matter how much attention they have given to that subject. I believe that most of our information is derived from unreliable sources—from newspapers and hearsay. I do not think this Congress ought to be guided by that sort of authority. Now, the testimony before the committee in relation to this submarine question was this: Mr. Dayton inquired of the Secretary of the Navy:

Would you recommend any further appropriation than we appropriated for in the bill of last year for the purchase of two submarine boats.

Now, Secretary Moody says:

I would not recommend going a step further than the general board's recommendation.

And again the Secretary says:

I suppose everybody wants to do the right thing by the Government. the general board comes here with a very conservative proposition; we want two submarine boats.

Now, I say this Congress can well leave this matter there. I do not object personally to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Roberts] as modified by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Hill] because that appropriates a little more money, but it leaves it to the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy and does not make it mandatory upon him to purchase anything that he does not believe is best for the Government after he has made tests as between these different types of submarine boats. Now I think is fair. I think everybody wants to have a fair test between these boats.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Or any other.

Mr. BRANDEGEE. Or any other boats or any improvement that may be made in the next few months, but do not let us be extravagant about this thing. This is a thing we can not afford to waste much money about until we know what is the best type; then we want all of them that are necessary for the protection of all our coasts. Now, Congress will be in session again next December, and I think then, after the Secretary has tested these boats and we see the result of foreign wars, we will be in a better position to judge, and I hope the recommendations of the committee will not be substantially increased by this House.

Mr. SLAYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Hill], and like him I want to say a few words about plain business matters in a plain business way. I do not pretend to any technical knowledge of marine architecture. If I had not had the privilege of seeing one of these submarine boats operate I doubt, sir, whether from reading of them I could have told the difference between them and Langley's flying ship, but I have seen them operate, and there are some few simple conditions of navigation that even I, landsman as I am, and a Representative from the interior, can comprehend perfectly well. I know that the submarine boat can go in a reasonably direct line. I believe from the testimony which has been printed and which I have read from time to time that it is the most effective war machine which has yet been brought to the attention of this country.

Now, I fear that there may be some opposition to submarine boats; I do not say the Holland submarine boat or any other submarine boat; but I fear there may be some opposition to the introduction of the submarine boats by commercial interests whose profits lie in another direction. I believe there is ample testimony on the part of naval experts to sustain these opinions. I believe that each submarine boat which we have for the defense of this country will displace a large and very expensive boat. I favor their purchase as a matter of economy and from plain business motives. I can not agree with the gentleman from Connecticut who has just taken his seat, or with the Secretary of the Navy, whom he quoted, that all people are considering the interests of the Government. I believe there is a large class of people in this country who consider their individual interests first and then the Government. In connection with other matters than their own they may be patriotic enough to consider the Government first.

Mr. Chairman, I saw in one of yesterday's papers, or, rather, in several of yesterday's papers, an estimate of the marine expenditures in the British Empire for the next fiscal year. It amounted to the stupendous total of $184,000,000. Incident to that project was an estimate for submarine boats, ten submarine boats. I am 0025 25calling attention to this budget, however, not for the purpose of citing the naval plan of Great Britian as an example which we should follow; I prefer to use Great Britian as an illustration of a country which we should not follow, although I have heard it urged upon this floor that the naval programme of the British Empire was one we should emulate. I desire to avoid these enormous naval expenditures—

Mr. FOSS. Will the gentleman yield for a question

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman yield to the gentleman from Illinois?

Mr. SLAYDEN. Certainly.

Mr. FOSS. I would like to know who said we are emulating Great Britain in her naval programme?

Mr. SLAYDEN. I do not know that I can name them just now, but I have heard it suggested several times, by supporters of the committee bill, that we must build up a great navy in order to compete with Great Britain or Germany or Russia or any other country which was going in for a large navy. Mr. Chairman, when I came to Congress seven years ago I was a very stanch advocate of the upbuilding of the Navy, but I think, sir, it has been upbuilt. I do not believe that we ought to go into any scheme of competition with Great Britain in that direction, but having built a magnificent navy, having built up a navy which has given a satisfactory account of itself on the high seas in conflict with other nations, having provided adequate protection for our own ports and seacoast cities, and having reached the condition of affairs where our annual naval expenditures approximate $100,000,000, I believe it is time to call a halt and—

Mr. FOSS. Will the gentleman yield

Mr. SLAYDEN. Yes.

Mr. FOSS. I want here and now to state for the committee that we disclaim any intention on the part of the committee to compete with any foreign nations in the matter of building up its navy.

Mr. SLAYDEN. I am very glad, Mr. Chairman, to hear the gentleman's disclaimer, but observation of the regularity with which his appropriation bills grow convinces me that whatever may be his declared intention we are rapidly approaching a condition of competition with Great Britain and other great naval powers.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. FOSS. I move that we close debate on this question in ten minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Debate is already closed unless some gentleman desires to speak. [Cries of “Vote!” “Vote!”]

Mr. FOSS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say just one word, that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Foss] is recognized.

Mr. FOSS. Mr. Chairman, the proposition which is reported here by the committee gives the Secretary of the Navy authority to buy two submarine boats after he has made tests, and it reappropriates $500,000, or such part thereof that may remain unexpended, toward that end.

Last year we made an appropriation of $500,000 and required the Secretary of the navy to make competitive or comparative tests, or both, between these boats. Those tests have not yet been made. Now, the proposition of the gentleman from Massachusetts is that the Secretary of the Navy shall buy submarine boats, and an appropriation of $850,000 is proposed therefor. If 0026 26you will examine that proposition for a moment, you will see that five of these boats at $170,000 each, which is the price of the Holland boat, make exactly $850,000. In other words, if the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts should be adopted, it means that the Secretary of the Navy can only buy submarine boats that cost $170,000 each—five of them.

To adopt that amendment means that the Secretary of the Navy must buy a particular boat, and that boat the Holland torpedo boat. Now, what I insist upon is that the Secretary of the Navy shall have the discretion and the right to buy any submarine boat that he may deem proper, and such as appears to be the best boat after there has been a competitive test and a comparison between the different types of submarine boats.

Mr. COWHERD. I should like to ask the gentleman whether he wishes to have that amendment adopted in such a form that the Secretary of the Navy shall have a discretion simply in the selection of the submarine boats to be purchased, or whether he shall have a discretion as to the purchase of any kind of submarine boats? Does the gentleman propose that the Secretary of the Navy must purchase some kind of a submarine boat?

MR. FOSS. I will say to my friend from Missouri that I think the best provision on this subject, the provision out of which the Government (and we stand here as the representatives of the Government and the people)—the provision out of which the Government will get the most benefit for its money, is the provision that was adopted by Congress in the last naval appropriation act.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. That is what I want.

Mr. FOSS. And that is practically the substitute offered by the gentleman from Connecticut. Let me read:

The Secretary of the Navy is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to contract for or purchase subsurface or submarine torpedo boats in the aggregate of, but not exceeding, $500,000—

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. COWHERD. I ask consent that the time of the gentleman from Illinois be extended for five minutes.

There was no objection.

Mr. FOSS. The gentleman from Connecticut in his substitute increases that sum by $350,000, making in all $850,000. Now, let me read further.

Mr. COWHERD. Before the gentleman passes from that point, will he allow me to ask a further question? I wish to know whether the legal construction of that language would not permit the Secretary of the Navy to say in his discretion that he does not want any submarine torpedo boat?

Mr. FOSS. Yes: he can buy these boats or not. But look at this proviso which follows:

Provided. That prior to said purchase or contract for said boats any American inventor—

Observe the language— any American inventor or owner of a subsurface or submarine torpedo boat may give reasonable notice and have his, her, or its subsurface or submarine torpedo boat tested—

How?— by comparison or competition— That is what we want. We want what is found to be the best, after there has been comparison and competition— tested by comparison or competition, or both, with a Government subsurface or submarine torpedo boat or any private competitor, provided there be any such. And thereupon the board appointed for conducting such tests shall 0027 27report the result of said competition or comparison, together with its recommendations, to the Secretary of the Navy, who may purchase or contract for said subsurface or submarine torpedo boats in the manner that will best advance—

Mark this language— that will best advance the interests of the United States in submarine war-fare: And provided —

Mr. WATSON. Let me ask a question.

Mr. FOSS. I would rather finish this.

And provided further, That before any subsurface or submarine torpedo boat is purchased or contracted for it shall be accepted by the Navy Department as fulfilling all reasonable requirements for submarine warfare, and shall have been fully tested to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Navy.

Now, the gentleman's substitute reappropriates the $500,000, or such part thereof as may remain unexpended from that appropriation, which was made in the last naval appropriation act.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Illinois yield for a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois yield to the gentleman from New Jersey?

Mr. FOSS. Yes.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. Does the chairman of the committee contend that that will permit the Secretary of the Navy to buy any submarine boats whatever without a competition?

Mr. FOSS. No.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. Then if there are two types of submarine boats manufactured in this country, one superior to the other, and one refuses to compete under that section, the Secretary of the Navy can not purchase any.

Mr. FOSS. Oh. the gentleman is mistaken.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. Why, certainly, that is the language of the section you have read.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Is that the ground on which they have refused to compete?

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. And that is put in as a subterfuge, to permit the Secretary of the Navy not to buy.

Mr. FOSS. Oh, no; I do no take it that way at all.

Mr. WATSON. I should like to ask the gentleman from Illinois a question.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois yield to the gentleman from Indiana?

Mr. FOSS. Let me read the language:

By comparison or competition.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. Yes, one or the other, but they must be willing to submit to a comparison or competition; and if there are two, and one refused and the other is good, and willing to have a competition or a comparison, the Secretary of the Navy is not permitted to buy, no mater how excellent it may be, simply because the other refuses.

Mr. FOSS. What position would that company be in that would refuse to complete or to compare?

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. They ought not to be considered in it, but I want to say to the chairman of the committee that I have confidence in the Secretary of the Navy.

Mr. FOSS. So have I.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. And it is left to him to decide whether to buy or not, and the requirement he puts on it ought to be sufficient as any other.

Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman—

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois yield to the gentleman from Indiana?

Mr. FOSS. Yes.

Mr. WATSON. I want to ask if it is not a fact that the Secretary of the Navy has recommended that at least two of these boats be purchased? It it not a fact that this provision was incorporated in your bill because of the recommendation of the Secretary of the Navy? Is that true?

Mr. FOSS. Yes; the Secretary of the Navy, in his statement before the committee, says:

I would not recommend going a step further than the general board's recommendation for two boats.

Mr. ROBERTS. In either case.

Mr. FOSS. This question was asked him:

And you have money enough for this purpose? Secretary Moody. Yes, only it would have to be reappropriated.

Mr. WATSON. Now, if the general board have recommended two, and the Secretary of the Navy has recommended two, he is then committed to two, is he not? And is it not reasonable to suppose that, being committed to two, he would purchase more if these boats meet the demands and the requirements of submarine warfare?

Mr. FOSS. Oh. undoubtedly.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. FOSS. I ask for five minutes more.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois asks unanimous consent to continue for five minutes. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. FOSS. The whole purpose of the committee is to protect the Government, to see it that the Government gets the most for its money. The committee is not opposed to submarine boasts in any way or respect or manner whatever, but the members of the committee believe that this money that we appropriate ought to go toward the progress of submarine science an and not for the benefit of one boat of the other.

Mr. Chairman, I might say as to different ships we have tested the battle ship and cruiser in actual battle, and the gunboat and also the torpedo boat, but the submarine has never yet been tried. I do not know whether it is going to prove an effective weapon of war or not. I may say that I trust it may, and I hope that we will develop a great deal along hi this line of submarine warfare. But I do insist that we shall appropriate money here in such a manner as will develop science, will bring in all the different inventions and developments on reference to submarine warfare, so that the Government in the end, by competition, by comparison, will get the best article for the money.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized.

Mr. RIXEY. The chairman of the committee, as I understand, is in favor of the substitute offered by the gentleman from Connecticut[Mr. HILL]

Mr. FOSS. Yes, sir; I call for a vote.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. COWHERD] is recognized.

Mr. RIXEY. Mr. Chairman, I merely want to ask the chairman of the committee a question.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri has been recognized. Does he yield to the gentleman from Virginia?

Mr. COWHERD. I yield to the gentleman to ask a question.

Mr. RIXEY. I understand the gentleman from Illinois is now advocating the Hill amendment.

Mr. FOSS. What is that?

Mr. RIXEY. I understand the gentleman from Illinois is now advocating the amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. FOSS. I believe the Hill substitute is even better than the provision which is brought in here by the committee because it is identical with the language of the provision of Congress in the last naval appropriation bill and that it reappropriates the $ 500,000 which was appropriated then, adds to it $350,000.

Mr. RIXEY. Then the chairman of the committee abandons the provisions of the present bill for the submarine boats. Now, I want to call his attention to this paragraph to see if he does not think it protects the Government. It provides:

The Secretary of the navy is hereby authorized to contract for or purchase two subsurface or two submarine torpedo boats at a cost not exceeding $500,000: provided. That before any subsurface or submarine torpedo boat is purchased or contracted for it shall be accepted by the Navy Department as fulfilling all reasons requirements for submarine warfare and shall have been fully tested to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Navy.

Mr. FOSS. Yes.

Mr. RIXEY. Why does not that protect the Government? Let me say to my friend that this whole matter was discussed in the committee: and we finally decided to insert this provision so as to protect the Government, and at the same time authorize and direct him to purchase at least two boats.

Mr. FOSS. Yes.

Mr. RIXEY. The committee was willing to authorize the Secretary of the Navy to buy two submarine boats after satisfactory test and trial. He did nothing under the last appropriation because the rival boat companies did not give the competitive test required.

Mr. FOSS. Will the gentleman yield a moment? The identical language was used as the gentleman has read; that is in the bill of last year. So that we have not only that but something more. We have here a provision that there must be a comparison of the boats.

Mr. RIXEY. Now, right there, the gentleman will remember under this additional provision that applies to submarine boats that so long as there is one party which is not ready, and which wants the boat tested, the Secretary will wait until all the parties can come and cannot buy a boat until all the tests have been made.

Mr. FOSS. Oh, no.

Mr. RIXEY. And that matter has been delayed by him for over twelve months. And I want to state to my friend, the chairman of the committee, that it was my intention to stand by the committee.

Mr. FOSS. And I will say to the gentleman also that I will stand by the committee, but I supposed that every member of the Committee was going to stand for this provision that we had agreed upon in the committee but I want to say to the gentleman that when the committee differed from that provision I am willing to state my views in the matter. Now I ask for a vote.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri had been recognised.

Mr. RIXEY. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the committee and myself have taken the time of the gentleman from Missouri, I ask that his time may be extended for five minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia asks unanimous consent that the time of the gentleman from Missouri be extended for five minutes. Is there objection?

Mr. FOSS. I move that we close debate in ten minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Missouri yield the floor for that motion?

Mr. COWHERD. I will.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois moves that debate on this paragraph and all amendments thereto be concluded in ten minutes.

The motion was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request that the gentleman from Missouri may be allowed to proceed for five minutes? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

Mr. COWHERD. Mr. Chairman. I want to say for myself, and I believe I voice the sentiment of a great many men on the floor of this house that I am in favor of the submarines boats being built for the navy now whether it be the Lake boat or the Holland boat or somebody else boat I do not care. I pretend to be no expert in naval affairs. I know as little about it as any man who has been raised fifteen hundred miles from tide water, and never saw a battle ship in his life. I know they can go for miles when wholly submerged, can rise to get their bearings dive again in the space of a few seconds, and discharge with fair accuracy, a torpedo, the most destructive weapon known to modern warfare. But I have seen these boats operate. I believe the submarine boat is the weapon of the future and I believe it is a piece of absolute folly for the American Congress year after year to appropriate here hundreds of million of dollars for a navy with from eight to twenty million dollars for great battle ship and refusing to provide any money for the experimentation of these cheaper boats that science tell us, and that today the admiral of the Navy tells us in the letter read by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Roberts], are to be the dangerous weapon of the future.

Now I do not care whether the language be the language of the Roberts amendment or the Hill amendment except I do care for this I do not want any amendment slipped in here under which any officer of the Government can say “It being left to my discretion whether I will purchase a submarine boat or not, I will exercise that discretion against the purchase of the boat.” I am perfectly willing to leave the Secretary of the Navy the discretion, of the designation of the boat to be purchased, but I want the purchase made mandatory.

Mr. MUDD. Will the gentleman yield to me for a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman yield.

Mr. COWHERD. Yes sir.

Mr. MUDD. The Secretary in his hearing before the committee says that in his judgment he would purchase two.

Mr. COWHERD. I know nothing about it except I see in the bill here an authorization for two.

Mr. MUDD. The Secretary submitted that.

Mr. COWHERD. Yes; but the gentleman knows that the amendment as proposed is worded so that the purchase can take place only after competition and—.

MR. HILL.of Connecticut. Will the gentleman allow an interuption? That competition can be held whenever the Government sees fit.

Mr.COWHERD. Cane it be held if there is no competitor?

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. It is entirely under the control of the Secretary.

Mr. COWHERD. Suppose there was no competitor

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. He can put in his own boat, he can put in the Government boat.

Mr. FOSS. Then determine by comparison.

Mr. COWHERD. I want to say this, and this is all I am arguing for, that I do not care to leave it absolutely in the discretion of that Department, which has heretofore time and again recommended against these boats; that the gentleman from West Virginia tells us—quoting from the heads of its bureaus—hold these boats to be worthless; I do not want to leave that absolutely in the discretion of that Department to say whether we will spend a few hundred thousand dollars for boats of this type or many million dollars for the big boats which are being built in the big navy-yards of the country. I believe the building of the submarine boat is not only necessary as a weapon of defense, but is distinctly on the side of economy.

We have been treated to-day to the most remarkable argument that has ever come from any committee, and particularly when it comes from the gentleman of the committee, who now have charge of the floor; when they fear that if you give them this appropriation they will take charge of some work that belongs to some other department of the governmental service. When was there ever a committee on this floor that was not willing to reach out and take all the work they could get? And many times have we heard these gentleman here saying, with tears in their voices as well as in their eyes, that you had taken away from them some kind of survey and given it to some other committee when it properly belonged to them. I do not want to see the Army buying boats. I do not believe it is the Army's business, but whether this is or not a technical question of coast defense, I believe we can and ought to provide in this bill so there will be no question about it, not that some officer shall have the discretion of purchasing submarine boats, but that we propose to see that the officer exercises that discretion to the extent only of selecting the type, and that this Congress demand that this Government shall go on with the operation of buying submarine boats, not extravagantly, but sufficiently to develop that great weapon of warfare that, in my humble judgment, is to be the weapon of the future. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the gentleman from Massachusetts offered an amendment to the paragraph and that the gentleman from Connecticut offered an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would like to withdraw the amendment to his amendment and let the substitute stand.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut now desires to withdraw the amendment to the amendment, and without objection that will be done.

There was no objection.

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have both amendments read. My understanding of the matter is that the question is, first, on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts to amend the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the question is, 0032 32first, on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ROBERTS] to perfect the paragraph, and then upon the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. HILL].

Mr. HILL of Connecticut. Now, Mr. Chairman, let us have a fair vote and a fair understanding. Those that are ready to place $850,000 at the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy for a competitive test will vote against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, and then will vote in favor of the substitute. Am I right?

The CHAIRMAN. The first question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts to perfect the paragraph.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. ROBERTS) there were—ayes 45, noes 106. So the amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now is on the substitute offered by the gentleman from Connecticut.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. COWHERD) there were—ayes 91, noes 51.

So the amendment was agreed to.