Page images
PDF
EPUB

Secretary MEYER. It fills up. When I was there two years ago they had 27 feet, but it fills up from the silt. We found that to keep it at a depth of 25 feet was going to cost about $200,000 a year.

Mr. LOUD. On the completion of the Panama Canal will it not be possible to secure one of the large hydraulic dredges, which would do away with all their troubles?

[ocr errors]

Secretary MEYER. At the Mare Island Channel they have a big problem. They have to employ hydraulic dredging machinery in order to keep a channel, and under those circumstances I believe it is feasible to keep a depth, but it can not be done by dredging the channel to 30 or 35 feet and leaving it; it has to be done every year.

That is the same condition with the jetties-there is so much material coming down that they have to keep a continuous dredging force. Mr. ESTOPINAL. Occasionally.

Mr. LOUD. The dredging on the Sacramento River, which caused a great deal of the silt to come down, has been discontinued, and there is not as much silt as there was some time ago.

Secretary MEYER. I do not know whether this will stir up discussion, but I want to go on record that there should be a 1,000-foot dock on each coast. I thought I would like to leave the location of those docks to the judgment of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. But where?

Secretary MEYER. I should leave that to the judgment of the committee.

Mr. WITHERSPOON. I think Mr. Lee can tell us.

Secretary MEYER. I have studied it considerably and given it a great deal of attention, but I am not prepared to-day to say exactly where the 1,000-foot dock should be on the Atlantic or on the Pacific. When the Panama Canal is opened the fleet is going to spend half of the time on one coast and the other half on the other coast, and I do not believe until that has been demonstrated you can decide easily where would be the most advantageous place for the big docks of the future.

Mr. TRIBBLE. What is the size of the dock to be at the Panama Canal?

Secretary MEYER. It is 1,000 feet, the same as the locks.
Mr. GREGG. On the Atlantic or Pacific side?

Mr. LOUD. On the Pacific side, at Balboa.

Mr. BATES. Has not authority been obtained for increasing the size of the Pearl Harbor dock to 1,000 feet?

Secretary MEYER. Yes, sir; Congress has committed itself to a 1,000-foot dock there and 110 feet wide. I had the new dock at Puget Sound changed at the beginning of my administration to 110 feet wide and 800 feet long.

Mr. BATES. As you have stated to the committee, the width of the Panama Canal locks is about as wide as the ships will be?

Secretary MEYER. Yes. It would be rather foolish to build a ship which could not go through the canal.

Mr. ESTOPINAL. If you have one at Puget Sound, one at Pearl Harbor, and another at Panama on the Pacific side, that will be three large docks on the Pacific side?

Secretary MEYER. Yes, sir. The Puget Sound Dock is 800 feet long.

85873-13- -39

The CHAIRMAN. Eight hundred feet is now 200 feet in excess of battleships?

Secretary MEYER. Approximately; that meets any naval require

ments.

Mr. LOUD. And you could increase the size of the dock at Puget Sound at any time?

Secretary MEYER. It could be done by cutting into the land. The length of all of our docks, as far as the Navy Department is concerned, is ample to meet the requirements of any battleship for the next 10 years. It is in the width where we have the difficulty. At Philadelphia, Boston, Portsmouth, and Mare Island, if those docks were of sufficient width they would meet all of the requirements of the Navy.

Mr. LOUD. The length is easy?

Secretary MEYER. The length is sufficient for the Navy, but not for commercial purposes. None of the docks which I have mentioned is less than 700 feet, which is 75 feet longer than the Pennsylvania, but there is not ample width at the entrance. The dry dock at Puget Sound will be completed the 1st of March, and will be capable of docking all our battleships.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, what is the status at this time of the Pearl Harbor dry dock with reference to the troubles that developed with the piling and the cement bottom?

Secretary MEYER. I had the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks go out there. They had not gotten the cement chemically in such shape that it stood the salt water. That, he claims, has been solved. Then, there was the question of the coral formation there. Those difficulties have now, as he reports, been overcome, and I think he was before you in a very long hearing?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. I did not know whether, since he appeared before the committee, you had received any cable messages as to the result of their work.

Secretary MEYER. Nothing further since he has been before the committee.

The torpedo slip at Charleston to cost $300,000, $150,000 appropriation now requested.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the same item which was incorporated in the Senate last year?

Secretary MEYER. Yes, sir. If the navy yard at Charleston is to be maintained as a torpedo-boat base, it is absolutely essential that properly designed berths of permanent construction shall be provided for these vessels as soon as practicable. The present timber structures are rapidly deteriorating, and the strong current in the river makes it necessary to construct a semi-inclosed basin for the safe use and berthing of the vessels.

Mr. GREGG. You say "if it is to be maintained as a torpedo-boat base?"

Secretary MEYER. Yes, sir.

Mr. GREGG. What is your view?

Secretary MEYER. I think it is a useful place. I would not have favored building it there originally. I think Key West is a torpedo base where the torpedo vessels are nearer the possible future requirements in case of need, but Charleston is a useful torpedo-repair station, and I think it is wise to make those slips.

The CHAIRMAN. In connection with the statement just made, if Charleston is maintained as a torpedo station, for what purpose will you maintain Key West; what is your idea?

Secretary MEYER. The idea of Key West is a torpedo base.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you intend to have two?

Secretary MEYER. Charleston is the place for the reserve torpedo vessels and for the repairs. Key West is important as a military base to supplement Guantanamo, the supposition being that the seat of war, if we should have one, would be either in the Caribbean Sea or in the vicinity of the Panama Canal. It also serves as an absolute protection to the Gulf of Mexico and the Mississippi Valley, if we hold it as a torpedo base in connection with Guantanamo. It is not to be a torpedo base in the sense of an extensive repair station; it is a station where minor repairs could be made, but not repairs of any material character.

The CHAIRMAN. Also in your report you refer to the improvement with reference to Key West-a project that involves an outlay of $1,690,000?

Secretary MEYER. You refer to the breakwater?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir; dredging and other repairs. The breakwater is $600,000, the dredging is $840,000, and then there is one other item, making a total of $1.690,000?

Secretary MEYER. The idea as regards Key West is this: It is used by the Revenue-Cutter Service; it is used by the Lighthouse Service; it is used by the Army; and it is used by the Navy. In the storm that took place there a few years ago, the Army had a pier which they will have to rebuild. That pier served as an imperfect breakwater. Now, it would be a most advantageous and wise expenditure, bearing in mind that it benefits four great departments of the United States Government, if the Army, instead of building a pier, built a breakwater to extend a little longer. That would be a harbor of refuge not only for the revenue cutters, the Lighthouse Service, for our torpedo boats and submarines, but for the transports of the Army, if they should run in there. Therefore, while the sum in toto seems large, when you take into consideration what it accomplishes and to what extent it would benefit the Government, it, in my mind, is a wise expenditure. Whether it is necessary to expend as much as that I am not prepared to say, but that would be the maximum under a most ideal project, providing a large basin as a harbor.

The CHAIRMAN. The construction of the breakwater submitted in your estimates and referred to in the hearings of Admiral Stanford involves an expenditure of $600.000.

Secretary MEYER. I do not think that belongs to the Navy to do.
The CHAIRMAN. And includes 35 acres of harbor water.
Mr. ESTOPINAL. Would not that be very much exposed?

Secretary MEYER. They seem to think with that expenditure it would be an excellent harbor of refuge for small vessels-for torpedo boats, revenue cutters, lighthouse boats, and submarines-and would serve the Government and commerce in time of peace. Mr. GREGG. What is the depth of water there?

The CHAIRMAN. It varies.

Mr. GREGG. I mean under your scheme, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary MEYER. From 20 to 22 feet in the basin.

Mr. ESTOPINAL. That would have to be dredged?

Secretary MEYER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The item for dredging was $840,000.

Secretary MEYER. My impression is that the formation is coral, and once dredged it would remain so.

The CHAIRMAN. There is a good deal of silt that washes over and comes ashore where the marine railway is.

Secretary MEYER. The breakwater would protect that.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, if I remember, two years ago, I think it was, you stated in your hearings that your idea with reference to the southern stations was that Pensacola would be discontinued and New Orleans and Key West would be used only as subsidiary stations, etc.?

Secretary MEYER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the project you have now, has there been any change or enlargement of the project?

Secretary MEYER. No, sir; the only enlargement is the harbor of refuge, and that because it would serve the Government. It is not intended to enlarge Key West as a naval station for repairs at all. Charleston would be the repair station for torpedo boats, submarines, and vessels of that character.

The CHAIRMAN. And it contemplates no enlarged expenditure ashore?

Secretary MEYER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In the building of shops?

Secretary MEYER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Or machinery and things of that kind?

Secretary MEYER. No, sir.

Mr. ESTOPINAL. What would be the advantage of that location as a base for small boats over New Orleans, where you already have a station?

Secretary MEYER. At Key West they would protect the entrance to the Gulf, and they could go anywhere up the coast, they could shoot from the end of Florida to any place required, while if they were 100 miles up the Mississippi River they could not protect the passage into the Gulf through the Florida Straits, and they might be bottled up in the river.

Mr. ESTOPINAL. Could not the fleet at Philadelphia be bottled up? The navy yard is 100 miles up the Delaware River?

Secretary MEYER. Philadelphia is handicapped in that respect, and is not being enlarged; it is being used for the reserve fleet, but if we should go to war

Mr. ESTOPINAL (interposing). I simply said that the same argument would apply against Philadelphia?

Secretary MEYER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ESTOPINAL. It has the advantage of having fresh water and being protected?

Secretary MEYER. In time peace of having a large fresh-water basin. There is no fresh-water basin in which ships could lie at New Orleans.

Mr. ESTOPINAL. The Mississippi River?

Secretary MEYER. Yes, sir; but you could not lie with your anchor there. Mr. ESTOPINAL. Why?

Secretary MEYER. Because your anchor gets so embedded; there is all sorts of refuse coming down the river; and there is great danger of floods.

Mr. ESTOPINAL. Not at all.

Secretary MEYER. That is a matter of opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. You were speaking with reference to Philadelphia; what have you to say in regard to the suggestion that we have a dry dock there? A dry dock would be needed in war time.

Secretary MEYER. We have a dry dock there.

The CHAIRMAN. I know, but I am talking about another one.

Mr. LEE. Is it not a fact, Mr. Secretary, that it would be impossible to bottle up a fleet at the Philadelphia Navy Yard on the ground that our forts would keep the enemy from coming up that far?

Secretary MEYER. No; I do not think it would be impossible to bottle up a fleet there, because a vessel could be sunk in the channel and make it awkward or impossible for us to get down to the sea. If they are going to do anything at Philadelphia, they should build a canal.

Mr. LEE. We can build a dry dock for practically the same price as we build the canal?

Secretary MEYER. A dry dock would not have the same character as the canal.

Mr. LEE. You mean by that to the Delaware River?

Secretary MEYER. Yes, sir; it seems to me that the logical thing is for public sentiment in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania to appreciate that they should have a canal, thus giving two outlets to the harbor of Philadelphia.

Mr. LEE. There is more danger of blocking the narrow channel up the Schuylkill to the Back Basin than there would be in time of war? Secretary MEYER. Any station, in time of war, that is away up a river is in danger, of course, of being Hobsonized.

Mr. ESTOPINAL. You said a while ago that the question as to whether New Orleans was a proper base was a matter of opinion? Secretary MEYER. Any question, of course, is open to

Mr. ESTOPINAL (interposing). All this policy has been a matter of opinion?

Secretary MEYER. I think there is no doubt that any station 100 miles up a river is at a disadvantage. There is no question about that. The river is of no great width at New Orleans. The bottom of the river is of such a character that they can not get the anchor up after it has been down a few days. There are floods and there is all sorts of refuse coming down the river, and there are no docks or piers at the yard.

Mr. ESTOPINAL. They can lie safely anywhere?

Secretary MEYER. Yes, sir; they can lie safely and remain there ad infinitum, but not for use.

Mr. ESTOPINAL. Yes; for use.

Secretary MEYER. I do not blame you, General; that is natural; but any fair-minded man will realize that New Orleans is not a natural place for a navy yard.

Mr. ESTOPINAL. When they located the navy yard there, was it a proper place?

« PreviousContinue »