Imágenes de páginas

Captain Allen: Mr. Chairman, may I take a minute to make an explanation to this extent: The Admiral Bunce section is under great obligations to the courtesy and indulgence of the Convention in permitting us to summarize and present our case. We had intended and had arranged, but were unable to accomplish it, to have printed all these proofs which have been read. They are in press, and we purpose sending them to the delegates. We have a list furnished from headquarters of the working delegates of the different organizations, and we shall furnish the book with great pleasure just as soon as it is out, and we expect it very soon.

[blocks in formation]

international reputation of General Horace Porter and his services as President and Director of the Navy League are well known to its members. Colonel Robert M. Thompson, graduate of the Naval Academy, has always at heart the best interests of our navy, and his activities in the interests of the Navy League as Vice-President and Director are invaluable. Capt. Francis B. Allen, a naval veteran of the Civil War, as chairman and leader of the Admiral Bunce Section of the Navy League, has been a wise and enthusiastic worker for the Navy League. Lieut. Randolph H. Miner, late of the navy, ably represents the interests of the Navy League on the Pacific Coast, and to his efforts may be ascribed much of the success of the convention of the League held last year at Los Angeles. Dr. John W. Croskey, as Treasurer of the Nicholas Biddle Section of the Navy League, has been an active and able representative of its patriotic

[blocks in formation]

THE NAVAL HISTORY SOCIETY ADDRESS BY REAR ADMIRAL CHARLES H. STOCKTON, U. S. N. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I have been requested, by the officers of the Naval History Society, as the only resident manager of the society in this city, to address you on the subject of the Naval History Society, and the officials of the Navy League have very kindly granted me time in which to discuss the subject. I believe and I think that after consideration you will believe the same thing that the Naval History Society and the Navy League are naturally twin societies, following different but parallel routes, with common objectives. I think there is nothing more effective than to bring home to the people of the United States all the lessons of the past as shown by naval history, and the deductions from such history. Whatever parties prevail in both houses of Congress, whatever matters they fail to respond to, they never fail to respond to a large majority of the votes of their constituents. Consequently, gentlemen of the Navy League, I wish to recall to you the fact that the fate of the American Navy is in the hands of the American people; and it is our duty, both as members of the Naval History Society and as members of the Navy League to see that a thorough and searching naval education be given to the people of the United States, so that they will understand intelligently from the evidence of the past, how to deduce the philosophy and the lessons of the future.

While wintering in Egypt some years ago, former President Elliot of Harvard met one of the leading ministers of the British cabinet of that period. He said to him:

"How have your naval policies been affected by the historical books of Captain Mahan?"

The gentleman smiled, and said: "They have not been affected; they have been remade."

Here is an example, possibly an extreme one, but a living one, of the effect of naval history upon the policy of nations. We have forgotten a great deal of the past, especially the people of the United States. The army is with them at their doors always; the navy is largely away. Its modesty, I think, is only equaled-if I may say so myself — by its efficiency.

There are points in the history of the navy which have practically passed into oblivion, and I quote to you from a history of the United States, simply to recall to your memory two matters that are practically forgotten points in the history of the United States and that the Naval History Society will in time take up and give the justice that is due to them as facts in our history. One is the history of the American privateer. It is almost forgotten. It is not purely a naval history, but so closely

allied to it that it should never be forgotten, particularly as it is one of the most creditable and spectacular incidents that have ever occurred in maritime history. Mr. Henry Adams, in the history from which I quote, gives it in such pertinent and eloquent terms that I feel it is no more than just to read it as it is written, and bring the subject before you. He says:

If the privateer could sail close to the wind, and wear or tack in the twinkling of an eye; if she could spread an immense amount of casvas and run off as fast as a frigate before the wind; if she had sweeps to use in a calm, and one long-range gun pivoted amidships, with plenty of men in case boarding became necessary,- she was perfect. To obtain these results, the builders and sailors ran excessive risks. Too lightly built and too heavily sparred, the privateer was never a comfortable or safe vessel. Beautiful beyond anything then known in naval construction, such vessels roused boundless admiration, but defied imitators. British constructors could not build them, even when they had the models; British captains could not sail them; and when British admirals, fascinated by their beauty and tempted by the marvelous qualities of their model, ordered such a prize to be taken into the service, the first act of the carpenters in the British navy yards was to reduce to their own standard the long masts, and to strengthen the hull and sides till the vessel should be safe in a battle or a gale. Perhaps an American navy carpenter must have done the same; but though not a line in the model might be altered, she never sailed again as she sailed before. She could not bear conventional restraint.

That is one point which I think is forgotten. Another which is brought to our attention of late, but not, perhaps, in the most forcible manner, is the effect of a blockade of our own coasts. There is no stronger example in American history than the pressure brought upon the coast of the United States in the latter part of the war of 1812, by the British fleet. It could not be paralleled to the same extent now as then, but there would be similar results, and our friends in the West would have then brought home to them by the blockade of our coast the danger of an insufficient navy in affecting their crops and exports. Thomas Jefferson, who is no mean authority to those who have probably not been the most enthusiastic about the navy, says of this blockade in the war of 1812 and its effects, as follows:

By the total annihilation in value of the produce which was to give me sustenance, I should be like Tantalus,-up to the shoulders in water, yet dying of thirst. We can make, indeed, enough to eat, drink, and clothe ourselves, but nothing for our salt, iron, groceries, and taxes, which must be paid in money. For what can we raise for the market? Wheat? We only give it to our horses, as we have been doing ever since harvest. Tobacco? It is not worth the pipe it is smoked in.

These are only two points in our neglected naval history. There is one point which is evidenced here in this city every day. The history of a country is attempted to be portrayed by the statues and monuments of the capi

tal city. This city is already beginning to be studded with equestrian and other statues; but what have we for the naval history of the United States? Gentlemen, let me say here that there is nothing that any citizen of the United States can find to cause a blush of shame in the naval history of the United States, from the Revolutionary War to the present time. What have we here as emblems of that honorable history of the United States? We have three monuments, two given by sources other than the Government, and one given by the United States. The first monument in point of time was that erected by the contributions of officers and men in the United States Navy in memory of those who were killed during the Civil War or who died from disease. The object of that monument has practically passed into oblivion. It is now known as the Peace Monument, and locally known as the parting of the ways and transfer station of a street railroad. The second monument is that of Admiral Dupont, a high type of American naval officer. The pedestal was given by the Government, the statue given by the family. The third statue is that of Admiral Farragut. I shall say nothing of its artistic qualities. Whatever they are, as a likeness of Admiral Farragut I can find no resemblance, from my personal knowledge and recollections of him.

There, gentlemen, is the portrayal of the history of the United States Navy, in Washington, in bronze and in marble. There will be a statue of John Paul Jones, I am glad to say; and a statue of Commodore Barry, not as a statue of a distinguished naval officer, but as a statue of a distinguished Irishman. Are we without incident? Are we without men? In the history of the war of 1812, was there not Commodore O. H. Perry, of Lake Erie, and Matthew C. Perry, of Japanese memory? Was there not David Porter, also, and his son? Was there not John Rodgers, father and son; Bainbridge, Hull, Decatur, all men entitled to the highest distinction and to be cast in bronze as historical examples of a navy of which all those who know it are proud?

Take one instance more, and with that I will close. Take the instance of the sinking of the Tecumseh in Mobile Bay, during the Civil War. All of you know, or ought to know, of that instance in which Tunis Craven, the commander of the ship, as it was going down, meeting, at an outlet, the pilot of the vessel, stepped aside and said, "After you, pilot." The pilot was saved; Craven went down. Do we want any better example for perpetuation in canvas or bronze than that episode? Is there any higher type of American nobility than was shown. in this instance? If there is, I know it not.

Chairman Satterlee: The convention will now have the pleasure of listening to a short address by another officer of the Naval History Society,- a well known writer, Mr. James Barnes.



Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Fellow Members: I am only going to speak a very few minutes, owing to a bad cold, and will try to tell you in twenty words, so to speak, something about the Naval History Society.

There are practically no records of the navy prior to 1861. Up to that time, or a few years before that, the log-books of the captains commanding the vessels of the navy were personal property. Prior to the war of 1812, records had been kept, to a certain extent. by the navy itself; but most of those records were burned when the British took Washington in 1815 and the Library was burned. There are extant in this country, in private collections and private families, the only records of the earlier navy. The purpose of this society is to collect, and to gather the collections that have already been made by Americans interested in naval history, and place them under one roof, in one room, and perhaps in the future in a separate building, and to publish every year one book or brochure upon naval subjects, which will give information to the people on naval subjects, information they could not possibly get otherwise. The membership of this Society is not very large at present, but almost every member, I think, of the Navy League is certainly interested in the object we are trying to further; that is, the gathering together, collating, and keeping the records of the navy, which are now so scattered. The membership dues are only $5.00 a year, and that includes this book, which will be published annually.

The Naval History Society have worked their way to a very successful position, and their work has been most important in moulding public opinion and in bringing to the attention of the government the needs of the navy. I think it is not asking too much of the members here to look at a little paper that we have had printed, that will give them a little information about the work of the Naval History Society.

Captain Roy Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose a vote of appreciation of the Convention for the addresses on the Naval History Society by Admiral Stockton and Mr. Barnes. They have been very interesting, and have given us some knowledge of the work of the society.

The motion was duly seconded, and was unanimously agreed to.


The officers of the fleet are entitled to their portion of credit; but the men who have succeeded in making the fleet possible are entitled to just as much and perhaps more credit. The people who are to-day interesting the members of Congress and the people of the country are the members of the Navy League. There are a lot of us members of the Navy League who are not entitled to very much credit; some members have been active and have borne the burden, and most of those who have done the hard work are here. Without the present presiding officer, Mr. Satterlee, we could not have had the Navy League; and without Mr. Ward, who has almost given his life to it, we certainly would not have progressed as far as we have. When Mr. Ward left the service, I remember, I thought we had lost a very valuable man; but since then I have thought it was a fortunate thing that it was so. General Porter, of course, has done a great deal for us. General Porter will be here, and we will have the opportunity of thanking him in person.

But the man who has perhaps done more than any one else is Colonel Robert M. Thompson. He is not going to be here. He is ill in the south. Mr. Barnes has spoken of the Naval History Society. It is no secret that Colonel Thompson is the man who helped them. He is, as I say, ill in the south to-day and unable to get here to preside at to-night's dinner. I know he would appreciate it, and it would do him good, to have a telegram from this meeting regretting his absence, and I therefore move that a telegram be sent to the Colonel, appropriate to the occasion, and that that telegram be signed by the presiding officer and Mr. Ward, who have worked with him for the good of this League.

The motion was duly seconded and unanimously agreed to.


The motion is carried, and a telegram will be sent just as soon as we take a recess.

The Chair has been reminded during the proceedings, particularly during the remarks made by Admiral Stockton, recalling the deeds of the navy in other days, that on August 19, 1912, will occur the one-hundredth anniversary of the fight between the Constitution and Guèrriere, and it might be an opportune and appropriate thing for the Navy League to appoint a committee at this Convention, to set in motion steps that would lead to a proper celebration of that anniversary, one of the great events

in the naval history of this country. As the old Constitution still floats, she might be the center of a celebration that would help attract public attention in that specific way to the navy and its history. If that suggestion meets with the views of the Convention, perhaps some one will make a motion to that effect.

Of course, the fact is that now, when we are still uncertain as to what Congress will give the Navy, everything we can do as an organization or as individuals to once more turn the faces of the people of this country towards the sea and what it means to them, what it means to them politically, economically, and, I might say in the sense of national life, spiritually, because the greatest nations in history have got their inspiration from the sea. We got ours; it carried us through the wars we have fought; it gave us the strength, the money, to conquer the West and to grow into the empire that we have become. Let us not forget that. Let us turn our faces back toward the sea. Let us understand and study the needs of this country in the way of a navy, not merely for offensive and defensive purposes, but because the navy as it stands to-day is the greatest object lesson we have of patriotism, respect for authority, and of organization. Those three things mean a great deal in the life of a republic; and I am among those who believe that if we who understand the navy and love it would make our fellow-citizens throughout the country share our reverence and enthusiasm for the service, there would be no doubt as to whether we would have one battleship or two battleships. The country would never rest until we had a capital ship for every State in the Union,- a Dreadnought for every star in the flag.

There are a few announcements that the Secretary will make, which will interest the delegates, and then we are all going to have the pleasure of going downstairs to the Red Parlor and greeting that man whom we all hold in love and respect, who is the friend of all of us and the chief of those who are in the service,- Admiral Dewey. Secretary Ward here read the announcements of meetings, etc., to follow.

Mr. Kelley: I suppose we have come together here to take council together how we can forward the efforts of the Navy League and arrive at some practical plan of going to work and stating the propaganda. Is there no provision made for something in that line, for somebody to work out some method of exciting public interest in our different localities, who, for instance, favor the building of these battleships which Congress has turned down?

Chairman Satterlee: Those matters, Mr. Kelley, are being considered by the Committee on Resolutions, which will present resolutions at the business session to-morrow morning. At that

time, the committee would welcome any suggestions from you or any other delegates. If you have any resolution in mind, please draft it and hand it to the Secretary or to any member of the Committee on Resolutions.

New Willard Hotel, 7:30 P. M.; February 22, 1912.
General HORACE PORTER, Presiding.
Mr. HENRY H. WARD, Toastmaster.


A cordial welcome to the Navy League and their friends here to-night: I congratulate the members of the League upon all getting safely into this safe port; no one driven out to sea by stress of weather; no one on the binnacle list; every one seeming willing and anxious to be on anybody's watch and in everybody's mess. We have here the apprentices and the veterans. I object greatly to being placed myself in the latter class. When I came into the room this evening, somebody said to me, "Have you spent your entire life in New York?" And I replied, "Not yet."

I was addressing some sailors and soldiers some time ago in a country town, and when I was called out by the mayor, he said: "Now, folks, I have the pleasure of introducing to you another of our war-scared veterans."

The only trouble I find with veterans at a feast is that they get to talking so much about what they ought to eat and what they ought not to eat, and the workings of their hearts, lungs, and livers, that what begins as a pleasant dinner soon becomes an organ recital.

I have come here to-night trying to be as modest as a colored brother who, at a camp meeting, said: "Oh Lord, use me; use me plentifully, if only in an advisory capacity."

When two old salts were discussing the navy, one remarked to the other: "Mike, the navy is not what it used to be." Said Mike, "No, and it never was."

The navy is not what it used to be; it is a great deal better. It is prospering, and we are all going to unite, and improve it still more.

This meeting to-night is really a peace gathering, for everybody in this country is for peace upon the main questions. He would be a blood-thirsty wretch, indeed, who wanted war simply for war's sake. The only difference between two classes of people in the country is that

Is there any further business before the convention? If not, we can greet the Admiral with naval promptness at 12 o'clock. Upon motion, duly seconded, the convention adjourned at 11:55 o'clock a.m.

they want to bring about peace in different ways. One class wants to abolish the army and navy and to send letters to sovereigns asking them to be kind enough not to fire on us. They forget that when burglaries are rife, and there is mob law and destruction in the streets, it is. not altogether well to disband the police. They may be honest in their sentiments, but they have not studied this great international question carefully, and they are not logical.

The Navy League knows that the United States has taken the foremost part everywhere in the securing of peace, in every international negotiation, in every peace conference, and we believe that the nation that is foremost in securing peace and is always going to use its influence in that direction should have the best armament for its own defense, to be able to speak with authority in commanding peace.

Why, they have gone so far, some of these sentimentalists, as to think that if we are going to have a big navy we must have a big war. They have worked themselves into the belief that naval officers can make war. The Chief Magistrate of the country, even, is not given that power; war can only be made by our legislators in Congress, after deliberate discussion of the subject. As brilliant as has been the career of our navy in war, sometimes I think it has been even more useful in time of peace. It has spent more years in its endeavors for peace than in war. Our navy has carried our flag and planted it in every quarter of the world, and trade and commerce have followed that flag. It has protected our missionaries who are preaching the gospel of Christ in different quarters of the globe; it has righted the wrongs of American citizens in foreign countries; it has aided in enforcing quarantines, saving us from pestilence; it has prevented filibustering expeditions starting out and entangling us with unpleasant quarrels with our neighbors. When a great peace treaty was signed, which broke up the war waged by the Algerine pirates in the Mediterranean, that treaty was signed in the cabin of that grand

« AnteriorContinuar »