belt of iron above and below the water-line—say 24 inches in thickness—and a strong oak backing. In the middle of the vessel the plan provides for a 24-inch turret, and a fore-and-aft fire is to be obtained by two heavy guns, one to run out at the bow, the other at the stern. When not in action these guns are to be ran away from the bow and stern to relieve those portions of the vessel from their weight. The ship will have a light spar-deck, and light, iron upper-works, all of which could be shot away without damage to hull or turret. In a gale, or under ordinary circumstances, this vessel would be closed up, with a grating over the turret to let out the smoke. In action the vessel's sides would be let down to enable the turret-guns to be fired. It may be objected that the freeboard would be too low to use the guns in rough weather; but this objection applies more to a monitor than to a vessel like the one in question. As a rule, ships do not fight in stormy weather; at such times they have all they can do to take care of themselves, and in an ordinary rough sea monitor hulls—such as this would be—roll only a few degrees, and there would be no difficulty in firing the guns from the center and ends of the ship. Such a vessel would have all the good qualities of a monitor, and would be able to keep the sea under sail. Small vessels on this plan (although I do not pretend they would sail like clippers) could be made fast under steam, and could carry four heavy guns, enabling them to reach any point under sail in case coal should run short. I venture the prediction that a similar class of vessel will finally be adopted by all nations for cruising purposes, as the iron, plating of ships has about reached the extreme limit, and we must therefore return to the monitor hull.
In the contest between iron and shot, the latter has so far won the victory, just as bullets prevailed over men in armor, and the only way in which vessels can be made shot-proof is to build them with low freeboard and the heavy iron belt, the necessary thickness of which can be calculated to a nicety.
I once had the honor to call your attention to the personal inconveniences to which officers in command of our squadrons abroad are subjected from having to expend their pay or other private means for the entertainment of foreign functionaries, in reciprocating hospitalities which they cannot avoid accepting, and which they deem it a duty to return. You are doubtless aware that in foreign navies commanding officers are allowed a certain amount, in addition to their pay, for the purpose of reciprocating these civilities, it not being expected that they should defray from their private means the expense of returning what is intended as a compliment to their nation.
It is generally but once in a life-time of service that a rear-admiral obtains command of a squadron, and his satisfaction is greatly reduced from the fact that his last cruise is so expensive as to deprive him of many comforts to which he is entitled in his declining years.
It is not possible that the people of the United States expect their naval officers to impoverish themselves and families by returning hospitalities which are extended more as a compliment to this country than out of personal regard to the officers.
Respectfully submitted.
Hon. George M. Robeson,
Secretary of the Navy.
