1869-1871, South Atlantic Squadron. 1872-1877, special service to Brazil and Pacific Squadron. 1877, training ship for boys, San Francisco. 1878, special service in connection with the Paris Exposition. 1879-1894, training ship for apprentices, Atlantic coast. 1895, January 17, transferred by the Navy Department to the Naval Militia, State of New Jersey. Now lying at the New York Navy Yard. Total cost of building and repair of the Portsmouth, to December 15, 1851, was $313,632.33. Very respectfully, Hon. JOHN E. RAKER, M. C., CHARLES W. STEWART, Superintendent Library and Naval War Records. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Mr. RAKER. Now, in that same connection, I would like to have inserted in the record various resolutions passed by chambers of commerce of California, requesting that the Portsmouth be repaired and sent to California. This is only a few of them. There were many others inserted in the record in the Senate. The resolutions referred to by Mr. Raker follow: Hon. JOHN E. RAKER, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF SACRAMENTO, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The people of the Pacific Coast States generally have a keen desire to have the United States sloop of war Portsmouth sent to San Francisco for the exposition. A necessary preliminary to doing this would be the passage of Senate bill bill 817, appropriating $25,000 for repairs that must be made on the Portsmouth. This bill has passed the Senate and is pending in the House. Inclosed you will please find copy of resolutions adopted by the Chamber of Commerce of Sacramento. You are respectfully urged to do all you can in aid of the passage of this bill, and a line notifying the chamber of commerce that you are using your best efforts in this direction will be greatly appreciated. Very respectfully, yours, S. GLEN ANDRUS. RESOLUTION. Whereas a resolution has been introduced in the Senate of the United States providing for the necessary repairs on the United States sloop of war Portsmouth, the first naval vessel that unfurled the American flag at the Golden Gate, San Francisco, Cal., which action is designed to preserve a historical relic and object of patriotic interest: Therefore be it Resolved by the Humboldt Chamber of Commerce, of Eureka, Cal., That the honorable Secretary of the Navy be, and he hereby is, requested to transfer the sloop of war Portsmouth to San Francisco, in accordance with the wishes of the people of the Pacific coast of the United States. [SEAL.] HUMBOLDT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Adopted at a regular meeting held May 17, 1911. THE MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO, June 26, 1911. Hon. JOHN E. RAKER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We understand that Senate bill 817, appropriating $25,000 for repairing the U. S. sloop of war Portsmouth to fit it out to send to San Francisco to be permanently stationed here, has passed the Senate but no action has been taken by the House, and that it is not likely the bill will be passed this session of Congress. We earnestly request you to use every effort to have this bill favorably acted upon by the House at this session, if possible, and to arrange, through exchange or otherwise, for this vessel to be assigned to San Francisco. The historic significance of having permanently located in San Francisco Bay this old vessel which first unfurled the American flag there and the constant lesson of patriotism conveyed by its presence in this bay would abundantly justify the Government in making the necessary appropriation and assignment and is worthy of your best efforts to secure that result. We are satisfied that the people, not only around San Francisco but throughout the Pacific coast, desire this vessel to be stationed here. Will you please give this matter your earnest consideration? Inclosed please find copy of letter sent to the Secretary of the Treasury. MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO. L. M. KING, Secretary. THE MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO, Hon. FRANKLIN MACVEAGH, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C. June 26, 1911. DEAR SIR: Referring to our telegram of May 17, 1911, to you as follows: "The Merchants' Association of San Francisco, representing 1,400 business firms here, earnestly petitions Government to refit sloop of war Portsmouth and send to San Francisco to be permanently stationed here, the first vessel to officially unfurl the American flag at San Francisco. The vessel will also be of great historic interest to visitors during the exposition, 1915. "MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO. "M. H. ROBBINS, Jr., President." We understand that Senate bill 817, appropriating $25,000 for repairs to the U. S. sloop of war Portsmouth to fit this vessel out to send it to San Francisco Bay, has passed the Senate but action has not been taken by the House, and it is doubtful whether anything will be done at this session of Congress. We earnestly petition you to use your influence to have this vessel, through exchange or otherwise, assigned to San Francisco Bay, as we feel that the historic significance of this old ship and the constant lesson of patriotism conveyed by its presence in the bay where it first unfurled the American flag would abundantly justify the Treasury Department and the Government in complying with this request. Respectfully, yours, Adopted by the board of trustees May 13, 1911. Whereas a resolution has been introduced in the Senate of the United States providing for necessary repairs on the U. S. sloop of war Portsmouth, the first naval vessel that unfurled the American flag at the Golden Gate, San Francisco, Cal., which action is designed to preserve a historical relic and object of patriotic interest: Therefore be it Resolved by the Stockton Chamber of Commerce, That the honorable Secretary of the STOCKTON (CAL.) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. RESOLUTION. Adopted by the board of trustees May 9, 1911. Whereas a resolution has been introduced in the Senate of the United States providing for necessary repairs on the U. S. sloop of war Portsmouth, the first naval vessel that unfurled the American flag at the Golden Gate, San Francisco, Cal., which action is designed to preserve a historical relic and object of patriotic interest: Therefore be it Resolved by the Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco, That the honorable Secretary of the Navy be, and he is hereby, requested to transfer the sloop of war Portsmouth to San Francisco in accordance with the wishes of the people of the Pacific coast of the United States. Attest: [SEAL.] CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF SAN FRANCISCO. Mr. RAKER. I believe the proper way to present this matter is that we should have in the record also the report of the Navy Department upon the idea of repairing the Portsmouth, and in particular that which relates to sending her to the Pacific coast. The report. was made on April 2, 1912. by the Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Meyer. The report referred to by Mr. Raker follows: U. S. S. "PORTSMOUTH." DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I am in receipt of your letter of March 30, 1912, tran s mitting copy of a bill to provide for repairing the U. S. S. Portsmouth and stationing her at San Francisco, Cal., and for other purposes, and requesting the recommendations of this department thereon. The transfer of the Portsmouth from the Atlantic coast to San Francisco has been the subject of extensive correspondence over a period of two or three years. I am sensible of the patriotic feeling that animates the people of California and prompts the desire to have the Portsmouth permanently located in San Francisco, for it was in this sloop of war that Commodore Montgomery took possession of Yerba Buena—now San Francisco-in July, 1846, and her history for many years thereafter was closely identified with that of San Francisco Bay. This department would, therefore, not oppose any action toward assigning that vessel to duty at San Francisco, but is of the opinion that certain features of the bill (H. R. 13006) would not serve the best interests of the Navy. Section 2 of this bill provides that the Portsmouth, when repaired and fitted out, shall be stationed at San Francisco, Cal., presumably for all future time. This would enjoin the Navy Department from issuing any order involving movement to a ship on the Navy list, and would further necessitate her upkeep for an indefinite number of years. The cost of ship keepers and necessary repairs for many years on a ship of no military value would be an unwarranted drain on the Treasury and expense to the Navy. If in place of this provision one could be inserted which would transfer the vessel to the State of California outright it would probably best meet the demands of California and the wishes of this department. Faithfully, yours, Hon. L. P. PADGETT, M. C., Chairman Committee on Naval Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington. G. v. L. MEYER. Mr. RAKER. Now, in the first place, we would like to have the committee recommend and provide for a sufficient appropriation to repair the Portsmouth, in consonance with the statement made by the admiral this morning. Then, in the second place, we would like to have her sent to the Pacific coast, leaving it to the committee to provide the conditions under which she shall be left on the Pacific coast. The bill contains a provision as to her future use if desired or needed at any time by the Government. The third question is as to the provision in the bill, if she is sent to California and kept in San Francisco Bay, that the State of California or the city and county of San Francisco maintain the ship in proper condition. I want to say that it seems to me that provision could be made that she could be maintained there and kept there under the direction and order of the Navy Department at any time they saw fit, if the committee believed that to be the better plan to pursue, but I am satisfied and feel I am justified in saying that if the committee should not see its way clear to make such proper provision that the State of California, in conjunction with the city and county of San Francisco, or either separately, will guarantee to keep up and maintain the ship, even with a proviso, I am satisfied, that if she is needed at any time on the coast she shall be under the order and subject to the command of the Navy Department. The CHAIRMAN. Judge, what do you think of the general policy of the Federal Government or the Navy Department going into cooperation or partnership with a State, county, or city in the joint maintenance of one of the ships of the Navy? Mr. ROBERTS. That is done right along now. Nearly every ship assigned to the naval militia is kept up quite largely by the State appropriations. The CHAIRMAN. They do not maintain the ship itself? Mr. ROBERTS. A good many of them do spend a great deal of money. The CHAIRMAN. On the ship itself? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir; as far as their means allow them. The CHAIRMAN. I was under the impression that the department maintained the ship and that the State appropriation maintained the naval militia personnel. Mr. RAKER. How is that, Admiral? Admiral WATT. Under a bill passed a year or two ago, to encourage school ships, the Navy Department keeps certain ships in repair, but those ships are operated by the States. Mr. ROBERTS. That is a little different. I was speaking of the Naval Militia. You have reference to the school ships? Admiral WATT. Yes, sir. Of course, in the case of the Naval Militia, the Government keeps the ships in repair and keeps a very small crew of enlisted men aboard them. Mr. ROBERTS. The States pay something in the way of repairsnot any extensive repairs? Admiral WATT. No. Mr. ROBERTS. In our State they do spend the State money on repairs, but how extensive the repairs are or what proportion of the total upkeep in the way of repairs is paid by the State I do not know." I do not think there is any separation. Admiral WATT. No; there is not any separation. Mr. ROBERTS. They use some of the State money to make repairs. Admiral WATT. On the Naval Militia ships the Navy Department makes the repairs. Mr. RAKER. Would there be anything at variance with the general policy or with the proper handling of the ship, provided the Navy Department maintained the ship at San Francisco and the committee and House did not see fit to provide for its maintenance there, if the State and city and county of San Francisco should assist or agree to maintain it, provided that it should be subject to the Navy Department at such time as needed? Admiral WATT. I think there is a precedent for practically everything. Mr. ESTOPINAL. It could be used by the Naval Militia of the State of California. Mr. RAKER. Of course, our people are much interested in this historic ship. We have one of our oldest and best parks down in the heart of the city, known as the Portsmouth. Then, one of the leading streets in the heart of the business part of San Francisco is known as Montgomery Street, after Capt. Montgomery, which at that time was at the water's edge. Of course, to-day it is almost a mile from the water's edge. The great mass of the people of California are interested in this matter, and as a matter of historic relic and as a matter of education to the youth, located as it is on the Pacific coast, it seems to me the Government could well afford to spend the money to have this ship repaired and sent to San Francisco before the exposition as one of its first ships sent at that time. We feel such interest in the matter that if Congress did not feel justified in maintaining the ship there during that time, I am satisfied, if the bill provided that she be sent there under these conditions, that our legislature would pass at this session a resolution providing for her maintenance. I have a letter from one of the leading senators, who tells me that he will take up the matter and give it early consideration. He feels that he can get the resolution passed. The CHAIRMAN. What is your idea; that you want the ship sent there permanently or only during the exposition? Mr. RAKER. The important thing would be, I suppose, to have the ship there during the exposition as a historic relic. The CHAIRMAN. And after the exposition is over? Mr. RAKER. The desire is that she be kept there as a historic relic. Mr. MACON. Or until such time as the Navy Department may need her elsewhere? Mr. RAKER. Yes, sir. Mr. ROBERTS. What would you say to getting the ship appraised and turned over as she is now to the State of California and let the State fix her up and take her around? Mr. RAKER. That would not be in accord with the general ideas of the Government. It would seem to me that the National Government would be relinquishing one of its historic vessels of great interest to this country, and particularly the West. Mr. ROBERTS. You are asking us to relinquish her now when you ask us to turn her over to California? Mr. RAKER. No; she would be there in service, to be used at any time. The CHAIRMAN. The question presented by the report of the Secretary is that all four could be separated from the Government completely, as other historic ships in the past have been? Mr. RAKER. That would be very delightful, to put her in repair and send her to San Francisco, and keep her there as a historic relic. The CHAIRMAN. But I am speaking of the fact that if nothing is done by Congress the department will simply have the boat surveyed, appraised, and sold to the highest bidder. Mr. RAKER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Then she would become simply the private property of whoever might buy her? |