by that board of skilled officers, embracing engi neers and gentlemen of high authority in naval matters, who had given it their undivided attention for more than two months? It is a subject involving the examination of tides and currents and soils and topography and defensibility, and questions of that complicated character; a critical examination of channels and of maps and of measurements, and the investigation of a vast and varied mass of facts. Do you feel yourselves more competent to decide it here to-day than that board, selected for their special adaptation for that purpose, and whose lives had been devoted to such pursuits?

The gentleman from Pennsylvania comes in here to-day, deliberately, with a confidence in himself which, to my mind, appears almost sublime, and asks you upon his argument and interested minority report, signed by himself and another gentleman from Pennsylvania, a member of the Committee on Naval Affairs-and it seems that Pennsylvania must always have two members on that committee, a double representation somewhere he asks you, I repeat, to-day upon his report and speech to decide this great question that so seriously concerns the whole future of the Navy, and to decide it for him, and against the concurrent report of this board of officers and the Naval Committee of the House. Now, Mr. Speaker, I say that the nature of this question is such it cannot be decided and ought not to be decided here. The attention of the Thirty-Seventh Congress was called to it, and it provided for its decision. It ordered that board of commissioners to examine into the subject. It is patent to my mind, from the construction of the act, that it ordered them to decide it, and that they did decide it, and that it was the duty of the Secretary of the Navy to abide by that decision, and not to have appealed from them to the Committee on Naval Affairs, and to this House.

Now, sir, as I have said before, four out of the six, and it was an unusual number-six of a commission to decide a mooted controversy-four out of the six decided against League Island. My friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. DAWES,] who honors me with his attention, knows that, in a contested case in court that would be an exceedingly curious board of arbitration which consisted of six, with no one to give a casting vote, and of

these six to have three who lived near the residence of one of the parties, and had an indirect interest in the decision, one of them having given an opinion on the case beforehand. Still, if that board, without any malfeasance or corruption, decided the case, four to two, and against the party to whom their bias inclined them, it would, I think, be strong evidence of the justice of that case.

When the report of that commission came before Congress, and the Secretary of the Navy, in his annual report, stated that he should accept League Island despite the action of that commission, unless Congress should otherwise order, it will be recollected that the Senate immediately, by resolution, did otherwise order. He was instructed not to accept League Island until Congress should direct him to do so. In the report of the Secretary of the Navy, just as in the report of the minority of the committee, you hear it insinuated that the finding of this ⚫ commission was in favor of a navy-yard upon "the old plan;" in other words, a yard for wooden vessels, and not such a yard as the Secretary wanted and as was necessitated by the revolution in naval architecture. To break the force of the report of the board of officers, it is over and over asserted in the Secretary's reports and by the minority that the commission mistook their duties and were led to find for "an additional yard on the old plan," and this stereotyped phraseology is repeated and varied in every form of expression and insinuation.

The short and decisive answer to this charge is the resolution passed by the board themselves before proceeding to their duties, and by which they themselves limited and defined them:

"Resolved, That after giving full consideration to the objects for which they were appointed, as indicated by the law, and inviting instructions from the Department, considering the views of the Department as expressed in the letters of the Secretary of the Navy of March 25 and June 9, 1862, and the discussions by Hon. Mr. GRIMES, of the United States Senate, and others in Congress, the wants of the Navy and the country, and the circumstances of the times connected with the progress of naval warfare, the committee are of opinion that their duty requires them to

refer, in selecting a site for a navy-yard, to a first-class establishment for iron-clads and iron vessels, or to a site for laying the foundation of an establishment meeting all the requirements of an iron navy,"

The gentleman who has just finished his speech as the advocate of League Island, following the path of the Secretary, has also repeated this charge against the "majority of the Naval Committee,' and alleges that they also mistook their duty, and found for "an additional yard on the old plan;" and this, notwithstanding he is himself a member of that committee, and has for five months sat with them during their examination hearing witnesses, listening to arguments, gracing the committee by his presence and lightening their labors by his eloquence, during all which time they have confined their investigations to the proper site for an iron navy and an iron navy alone. And if proof of this were needed, I have only to refer the other seven gentlemen who compose that committee, now within the sound of my voice, to the following language of their report:

"The committee cannot avoid the conclusion, therefore, in answer to the first branch of the inquiry with which they were charged, that the immediate establishment of a new yard, with special adaptation to the building and storing of iron vessels, has become a national necessity."

And to the unanswerable fact that the very bill reported by the committee, and now before the House, contemplates the establishment of a yard for an iron navy, and an iron navy alone.

Mr. Speaker, my time will not permit me to go further into the discussion of the history of that subject. Early in this Congress the matter was referred to the Naval Committee, consisting of one gentleman from Massachusetts, one from Connecticut, two from Pennsylvania, and the others from Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, New York, and personally visited these sites; and I affirm to-day various parts of the country. That committee that you cannot decide in reference to the propriety or otherwise of the selection of one of these sites without a personal examination of them. The committee visited them. They heard all of the proof and all the arguments. They started prepossessed in favor of League Island, from the fact of its central position, and from the further fact that it was favored by the Secretary of the Navy, as well as from its vicinage to coal and iron and the alleged advantage of fresh water. Starting with that prepossession, they have finally reported to this House that in their opinion League Island is entirely unadapted to the purposes for which the Government seeks to establish a depot

for iron-clads.

If the House will listen to me for a few moments longer I will state what the committee found League Island to be. League Island is in the Delaware river, about four miles from the settled part of the city of Philadelphia, and is between three and four feet below the surface of the river That is the first fact that at ordinary high tide. struck the committee, as it struck the commission. And it struck them forcibly.

An island it is called by courtesy; an island it is entitled, out of abundant charity, in our report; and I undertake to say that if a writ of ejectment thereon either would be abated on plea if the comor trespass were brought against a wrongdoer plainant described "the locus in quo" as an island unless it was added "covered with water." Now, the surface of that island is from three to four feet below the Delaware river at ordinary high tide, and but for the embankments which surround it it would be flowed at each recurring tide-a fact which is disputed by none.

Mr. KELLEY. As the gentleman says the fact is not denied, will he permit an interruption?

Mr. BRANDEGEE. The gentleman knows as well as I do that I have not one quarter of the time I need to set the case before the House.

Mr. KELLEY. The fact is denied that the island is four feet below high water.

Mr. BRANDEGEE. I will quote from the record, making no statement of my own, and accepting none from interested parties. I will read from the record of a board of competent officers appointed by the Secretary of the Navy:

"League Island is a reclaimed marsh, surrounded by a dry stone wall and embankment of carth raised to exclude the river. A portion of the island was reclaimed many years since, and is known as the old meadow. We have no positive information on this point, but presume that at the time the wall and embankment were built all the land worth reclaiming was embraced within the inclosure. Sub sequently, and about eighteen years since, as we are in

formed, the inclosure was extended so as to embrace an additional area, now known as the new meadow. According to a plan which has been submitted to the board by a committee from the Board of Trade, this old meadow contains two hundred and nineteen acres, and the new meadow one hundred and fifty-five acres. On the north of the island, and between it and the main, there is a channel which, we are told, was of sufficient depth in former days to float large ships-of-war; now it is a narrow and shallow channel, not sufficient to float vessels of any size used by the Navy. Large areas of marshes have formed on the east and west ends and on the north side of the island, and the whole appearance indicates a constant and rapid accumu lation from the immense deposits of the Delaware river. To raise the surfuce of this island to a height which would render it safe from the incroachment of high tides, will require a filling of from nine to ten feet over the whole area; and if, as has been suggested, a line of whart front be carried out to the twenty-three feet line, it will involve an additional filling of a space one mile long, and averaging four hundred and eity-one feet wide and nineteen feet deep. If this space isot filled, then the constant use of dredging machines will be required to maintain a sufficient depth of water to accommodate the vessels of the Navy. To furnish the materials for this immense filling, which will amount in the aggregate to several inillions of cubic yards, it is said that an abundant supply can be had from Red Bank, on the opposite side of the river."

Two hundred and nineteen acres and one hundred and fifty-five acres, according to the old arithmetics, used to make three hundred and seventyfour acres. Where, then, are the six hundred acres the gentleman alludes to in his minority report; and where are the six hundred acres of "munificent gift" which the Secretary of the Navy urges upon Congress in his last report? It is a mud flat outside of the island, the recent accretions of the river-ooze, that ooze of which blind old John Milton might have sung as of another ooze just beyond the "burning marle" where was "Neither sea nor air nor good dry land,

But all these in their pregnant elements
Mixed confusedly,"

or that "Serbonian bog," where great armies might have sunk. This ooze outside of the island is added in the minority report to make out the six hundred acres.

And in reference to the land which is inclosed, we have already seen what the commission say. The water adjacent to the front of the island is but a few feet in depth; at low tide the bottom is entirely exposed.

You have got to get, then, twenty-three feet of water for your vessels to lie in, and to secure that depth will require the additional filling in of a space one mile long, four hundred and eighty-one feet wide, and nineteen feet deep. If this space is not filled in, the constant use of a dredging machine will be required to maintain a sufficient depth of water: The report goes on to say:

"The borings made by the board show that there is a depth of mud and fine sand varying from twenty-five to fifty-six feet in depth, under which is found gravel of good quality, and in sufficient quantities to sustain piles. It is undoubtedly true that no heavy structure can be erected on this island with any probability of safety without resorting to the expensive operation of piling.

"The board is therefore of opinion that, in this particular, New London is vastly superior to League Island."

I have taken the pains to get an engineer to estimate the number of cubic yards in three hundred and seventy-four acres, and it is 5,485,433; and at a dollar per cubic yard, the least price at which the dirt could be purchased, transferred across the river, rehandled, and spread upon the island, it would take more than five million dollars to fill up that island.

But the strongest fact by far is that upon an examination by a scientific process of boring, it is ascertained by the commission-and it is couceded by both branches of the board, majority and minority-that the whole island, or so much of it as is necessary for naval purposes, must be filled to the average depth of thirty-seven feet. The borings showed that the gravel bottom of that island is in some places twenty-five feet below the surface, and at other places fifty-six feet, an average of more than thirty-seven feet. Professor Bache, and the engineer of the Philadelphia yard, and the entire commission, disagreeing in other things, concur in this, that the island must be filled to that average depth.

If you add to the expense of filling the expense of piling, you make an island which, instead of being a gift to the Government, there is hardly money enough in its Treasury to pay for. The gentleman at the head of the Treasury Department has not capacity in his presses to issue greenbacks enough from day to day to pay for the filling and piling, as the work progresses. Millions are required to prepare a foundation.

28th, and he hopes that in the morning of the 29th he may be still in time to secure to Philadelphia, this inestimable boon of the great naval site of the country. This is one of a class of witnesses that my friend [Mr. DAWES] would hardly characterize as a slow witness. He goes on to say:

These facts are conceded by the Secretary, by Admiral Smith, chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, and by both branches of the commission. My friend [Mr. KELLEY] breaks, or attempts to break the force of this argument by asserting in his minority report that "a more accurate examination, such as a really scientific commission would have made," has demonstrated that the report of the original commission was inaccurate, and that the island can be used for Government | tationpurposes without being piled.

"In visiting the place for the first time with any view to an examination, I have no hesitation in saying"

Of course such a witness would have no hesi

"from my experience in the location of our present estab

for the proper foundations for machinery or buildings at League Island."

This witness, who has an establishment at Port Richmond, ten miles off, asseverates here that, from his experience at Port Richmond, he has no hesitation in saying that the Government can safely put works at League Island, ten miles off. He goes on to add what the character of those works are, and closes with a foot note, which, like the postscript of a lady's letter, is the most important part of his testimony:

"I should have said that my buildings for boiler and smith shops stand on gravel foundation, running from five to ten feet toward the river."

I ask the attention of the House, of the gentle-lishment at Port Richmond that no difficulty will be found men who have examined these reports, and of those gentlemen who have interest enough left in the American Navy and in American navy-yards to decide this question right instead of wrong, with their eyes open instead of blindly; I ask them to consider the testimony by which the gentlemen of the minority of the committee attempt to break the force of the report of this scientific board of officers who examined the question. Who is the witness? Who was the person detailed to make this "accurate examination such as a truly scientific commission should have made?" One George Davidson; and perhaps "not to know him argues one's self unknown." And who is Mr. George Davidson, detailed by the Saperintendent of the Coast Survey, whose own course has been criticised in the Senate pretty sharply, and in the press of the country, for acting on a board in a matter wherein he had already given an opinion in advance? This Super- || intendent detailed one George Davidson, of Philadelphia, to examine League Island and report his conclusions; and what are they? The conclusions of Mr. George Davidson as to the scientific results of his observations are precisely identical with those of the original commission. He finds that the alluvial soil attains a certain depth. So did the commission. He finds that then comes a stratum of fine sand. So did the commission. He finds that at the depth of thirty-seven feet, on an average, there comes gravel. So did the commission.

The difference between the commission and the witness is this, and solely this: he gives it as his opinion that the heavy work necessary for the Government may be placed upon the fine sand. Professor Bache, the engineer of Yards and Docks, the admiral of the bureau in charge of Yards and Docks, give it as their opinion that it would not be safe to put them on the sand, but that they must go down to the gravel. That is the only difference between them, and it is a difference of some thirty to fifty feet and of some millions of dollars. And this strictly scientific commission, consisting of one gentleman by the name of Davidson, of Germantown, a ward of Philadelphia, and who gives an opinion which, he says, "in my mind amounts to a conviction,' goes for putting the workshops and forges upon the surface of the ooze, while Professor Bache and the engineer who is to build the yard, and the other gentlemen composing the commission, not so strictly scientific, think it unsafe to erect such structures without reaching a solid foundation. That is all; but suppose Congress, having rested the fate of our great Navy on the opinion of one George Davidson, (contradicted by all the other experts,) which, in his mind, "amounts to a conviction," should one day, after expending millions, find these foundations settling, should find your heavy mills and forges, workshops and trip-hammers, all crumbling into one mass of undistinguishable and irredeemable ruin, would it be any satisfaction to know that still, in the mind of Mr. George Davidson, that opinion amounted to a conviction? That is the result of the attempt to break the force of the scientific commission by introducing the testimony of Mr. Davidson.

I do not know but that I ought in fairness to add here that the minority of the committee has brought up another witness to support this view. He is a gentleman named Lewis Taws-of Philadelphia, of course. His testimony is so peculiar that I think the House should have the benefit of it. He says:

"PHILADELPHIA, March 29, 1864. "DEAR SIR: Your letter of the 28th reached me at my house in Germantown too late for an answer by return mail. I hope I may still be in time, if my opinion can be of any use in establishing the fact that League Island is a proper place to locate a navy-yard for the general purposes of our Government."

He received the letter to which he refers on the

So this witness, the question being whether you may safely put the Government buildings on sand instead of gravel, gives his testimony that they may be safely put upon sand, because his works, ten miles off, are put upon gravel. And well might_the_honorable gentleman, having a dim suspicion that the testimony was liable to exception, interpolate a picture of a steam anvil as a place for the mind to pause upon, before it arrives at the consideration of the next branch of the subject.

Now, while I am here upon that picture, I might as well say this, because the Secretary of the Navy in his annual report has alluded to that very picture. I do not know whether or not he made the reference by way of advertisement of the artist. If he did, in my opinion the picture is as valuable as the advertisement. But the Seeretary has alluded to the fact that League Island is the best place for a naval station because "percussive machinery" can be put with better advantage upon sand than upon ground or stone. Now what is " percussive machinery?" A triphammer. How much space does that take? We have the scale upon the picture, and I have taken the trouble to measure that scale. It takes precisely fifteen feet. So that in order to have an elastic bedding of fifteen feet for a trip-hammer, you must take six hundred acres of ooze and mud and fill it in. And to do that you must throw away the best place upon this continent for a naval station, in order that your clastic machinery, as is alleged, may in fifteen feet of digging no- | where find rock. When I come to that part of the subject I shall show conclusively that the soil at New London is free from rock, consists of loam and gravel, and is remarkably adapted for all the uses of a yard. So much for the topography of League Island.

And now I undertake to say that that is the least objection to it. I undertake to say that the obstructions from ice in the Delaware river, the difficulty from the inadequate depth of the water in that river, its distance from the sea, each of them is a still stronger objection to it than the one just disposed of. The great argument that is urged is that it is a place of security for your vessels. So are the Alleghany mountains a place of security. But it would not be the part of wisdom in the House or in the Department to make a station for iron-clads there. And I can show that it would be almost as impossible for ironclad vessels to get to sea in times of emergency from League Island as from the Alleghany mountains. The obstruction from ice at this point in the Delaware river is so formidable as to be insuperable. And the testimony comes from such a variety of sources, from witnesses so credible, so numerous, and so scattered, and from times when it was nobody's interest to manufacture testimony, that no man can discredit it. And the honorable gentleman has not undertaken even to meet it, except by saying that the force of that objection has been greatly exaggerated, not attempting at all to deny the fact.

The force of this difficulty can hardly be exaggerated; it is very strongly urged by the Secretary of the Navy himself. I refer to the ob

struction from ice. It is strongly stated by the commission that originally examined it. There

¦ was presented to the committee, while they were examining this question, a list, and a long list, of vessels, taken from the records of the port warden's office in Philadelphia, that within the past few years had been entirely destroyed by the ice. We found, from an examination of the records of the Corn Exchange, in Philadelphia, that the arrivals at the port of Philadelphia for the winter months were, upon an average, five hundred and two per month, while, for the summer months, they averaged thirty-five hundred per month--a rate of increase, I think, for the summer over the winter months of about six hundred per cent. I may not be precisely accurate in that statement, but gentlemen can turn to it in the report. Whatever the precise figures may be, there was an immense diminution of the coast wise and foreign arrivals at that port in the winter months as compared with the arrivals in the summer months, showing how the commerce of the country regarded that obstruction.

Senator RIDDLE-I do not know whether it is parliamentary to name a distinguished Senator from Delaware in the other Chamber-testified before the committee as a witness who had no bias outside of Delaware, certainly, that he himself had known the Delaware river to be frozen solid at League Island, and had driven across it himself in his sleigh. And he also stated what ought to be known to this House, and perhaps practiced as an example by some, that if he himself were a member of the Pennsylvania delegation he could not in conscience vote for this schemehe himself being a distinguished engineer. Admiral Gregory laid testimony before the committee that he himself nearly lost the Raritan there a few years ago, from ice; and while the gentleman [Mr. KELLEY] was denying the difficulty from ice, and while I, in a humble way, though as ably as I could, was asserting it, while we were discussing this precise question in committee, the Government gunboat Galena, in attempting to go to sea, solved the question by being herself cut through by ice, and being compelled to be towed, almost in a sinking condition, to Fortress Monroe. The difficulty in this respect was so striking that the great coal-carrying lines of Pennsylvania felt compelled a few years ago to alter the location of their coal depots, and passing by League Island went down the river forty miles, I think, in the neighborhood, at any rate, of Chester or New Castle, and gave as a reason, in their published statement to their stockholders, that it was for the purpose of avoiding the delay, danger, and difficulty from ice. And there was laid before the committee the testimony of a civil engineer in the interest of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, who had been employed by them to investigate this precise site to see whether it was adapted for their purposes. He says:

"You will perceive that the face of League Island is subjected to the full force of the flood tide from the long reach in the river, extending southwestwardly, the effect of which has been, as represented by the statements of those most familiar with our river, and its winds, currents, and bars, to pile up the drifting ice upon the entire island shore-line; and, indeed"-

he adds, (and the gentleman cannot discredit the testimony of a Pennsylvania witness, an engineer at that,)

"I have before me evidence to the effect that in all times of obstruction by ice vessels can be brought with much less

difficulty through the Horseshoe channel than to League

Island. It may be stated that an ice-guard could be constructed that would relieve the front from the driving ice of the flood tide, but the effect of such breakwater would be to cause deposits within the surface affected, thus subjecting you to a continued and heavy expenditure for dredging.” And upon that report the company abandoned the project.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask this House whether such a site, in such a river, as I hope I shall have an opportunity to show the House by and by, in the further progress of this debate, is a place for a great naval station? It is well known that at a naval station vessels are constantly going into and out of commission. They come from abroad, and must have a broad front to lie in while await ing orders or repairs. They must lie in the stream, and the stream is the channel, because there is not sufficient depth of water out of the channel. There they must lie, anchored in the channel, subject to the obstruction of fast ice, and danger from float. ing ice, at anchor, to be cut through by a down

subject, and what is the result? I admit all the science the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] possesses, and he has brought into his report much more, culled from the report of British associations, and it runs through ten or fifteen pages of his report. But what is the result to which they have arrived? That the prejudicial action of clear sea water upon iron bottoms for one hundred years is the two hundred and fifteen thousandth part of an inch. The prejudicial action of fresh water is twofold, first from oxidation, and secondly from the attachment of crustacea and other marine attachments to the iron bottom. If I state aright, the result of the tables is nearly inappreciable; but whether it be so or not, I shall undertake to show upon the highest authority that it does not affect iron bottoms in New London harbor. The prejudicial effect of marine attachment is very serious-not less so than the gentleman has stated-to the motive power and efficiency of a vessel.

In one hundred years, then, according to the experiments of England, which are the best lights we can have, the rusting of an iron bottom is the two hundred and fifteen thousandth part of an inch. If my friend's lease of life were as long as that, or if the deterioration of the human system were as slow as that, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there would not be much use for life insurance offices. In one hundred years it is the two hundred and fifteen thousandth part of an inch. If our iron-clad navy lasts as long as that in clear salt water, the scale upon the surface will hardly pay for the one hundred miles of navigation up the Delaware.

Now there is an injury, and a very serious one, growing out of the attachment of marine plants and of marine animals. In southern seas they attach with a marvelous rapidity, and to a degree almost beyond belief; and they destroy or seriously impair the efficiency of an iron or of an iron-plated steamer. They do not, however, attach in any great degree to wooden hulls. There is no doubt that these barnacles, these algæ, these sea-worms, these crustacea, of whatever species or genera, do lose their life in fresh water, and that the marine plant loses its life in fresh water. I assert, however, without fear of contradiction, that a condition of things does exist, from whatever cause, speculate on it as you please, summon up philosophy as you may, in the waters of New Loudon, which destroys these crustacea, be they animal or vegetable.

If gentlemen have done me the honor to read the report of the Naval Committee they will have seen that the river Thames, on which the city is located, is a fresh-water stream-a very short one, to be sure-straight, and very deep, and that it is fresh to a point opposite the proposed site of the yard. There it meets the waters of New London harbor, and a brackish state of the water obtains. In that precise water, upon testimony which cannot be discredited, upon the testimony of Benjamin Silliman-a name known in this House and to the country; I might add, known where the English language is known-who himself examined the very site, crustacea do not exist. They are destroyed when brought into contact with those waters. The testimony of that eminent geologist and savant of this country is confirmed by the united testimony of every shipmaster in New London.

Some of them are known to gentlemen on the other side and some of them to gentlemen on this side-such men as Williams and Havens, Barnes and Williams, Frink and Prentis, and others, whose business it has been to chase the leviathan of the seas around the Arctic circle. They have established this very fact, that the barnacles, the sca-worms, the crustacea, do not exist, and cannot live in the waters of New London harbor. The ship-timber men, the pile-drivers, the owners of wharves, all unite in testifying to that fact. The gentleman [Mr. KELLEY] has attempted to discredit the fact without producing a particle of evidence, but on a visionary theory of his own, that the Atlantic ocean pours its resistless tide into the Thames river, and drives the fresh water back up the river. The theory is ingenious enough if it were not met by the fact that Long Island aud Fisher's Island lie across the harbor, and that those sounding waves of the Atlantic, of which the gentleman speaks in still more sounding phrase, are dashed upon "old Long Island's sea

The truth is, and the fact is testified to so that the committee did not for a moment doubt it, that this objection does not obtain in our waters; and further proof of it is that the whaling vessels that come from the Arctic circle and lie at our docks lose within two days their barnacles and the crustacea which attach to them.

Mr. L. MYERS. With the permission of my friend, I would like to ask him whether the vessels he speaks of were iron-clad ?

not.

Mr. BRANDEGEE. My friend, I hope, feels a glow of satisfaction in learning that they were One thing more has been urged against New London, its want of defensibility. If the House shall be patient while I address myself to that branch of the subject, I will then relieve it from the further sound of my voice.

It is urged that the site in the Delaware river is thoroughly defensible. Perhaps it is, and perhaps it is not. But the shortest path to League Island, by an enemy, is not by the Delaware, though it may be the only path for us. It is not beyond the recollection of those who remember the history of our revolutionary war, that the enemy passed into Chesapeake bay, landing at Elkton, and flanked Philadelphia and took it, and held it for five months. I might here say, with reference to the obstructions which are relied upon as the chief defenses of the Delaware river, that what is good for defense is good for offense. And if the Delaware river can be obstructed at a certain point to prevent the entrance of an onemy's fleet, can anybody give me any reason why the enemy cannot obstruct the entrance at the mouth of the bay by chains, torpedoes, or other obstructions, and seal up your entire Navy, while they blockade the mouth as tight as in a bottle? How would you get to sea, with the enemy blockading the mouth of such a river as that, and with obstructions to aid the blockade?

It is said, indeed it is rather sung than said, (the Secretary having set the pitch and the whole choir having caught up the refrain,) that New London is indefensible in this, that an enemy's fleet with modern ordnance can lay off a short distance from the mouth of the harbor and shell out the navy-yard if it be established there. The committee have found, and the fact is so, and military gentlemen who were with the committee upon the investigation of that site will attest the fact, that the navy-yard site lies about three and seven eighth miles from the mouth of the river. Beyond the mouth are numerous islands and headlands admirably fitted for earthwork batteries. An enemy, then, to lay within shelling distance of the navy-yard, must lay within short range of the plunging fire of the batteries upon these islands and headlands. In other words, to obtain a range of four miles, and do execution, he must himself lay within a hundred yards, or a hundred feet, it may be, of the batteries at the mouth of the harbor.

As to what the judgment of science and of practical minds is upon that subject, I will not follow the gentleman's example and introduce myself as a witness, but that of a board, the competency of whose testimony cannot be questioned for an instant. It is in this report on armored vessels, which contains a great deal of information, and I commend it to the consideration of my friends upon the other side. In the report of the board called together by the Secretary of the Navy for the purpose of investigating the very question we are now considering, whether an armored fleet can be kept off by local immovable batteries, this opinion is given on page 3:

"We do not hesitate to cxpress our opinion, notwithstanding all that we have heard or seen written on the subjeet, that no ship or floating battery, however heavily she may be plated, can cope successfully with a properly constructed fortification. The one is fixed and immovable, and though constructed of a material which may be shattered by shot, can be covered, if need be, by a much heavier armor than the floating vessel can bear, while the other is subjected to the disturbance of wind and waves, and the powerful effect of tide and current."

The problem proposed by the gentleman is, that a fleet can come from England or the Continent, weighed down by its weight of armor, cross the ocean thus weighed down, and then lay within a few hundred yards' range of batteries at the mouth of a river, and shell out the naval establishment of the country four miles above without danger to

the opinion just cited, if it had not been before decided by common sense. Added to this would be the presence of your own invulnerable iron-clad Navy, present for its protection with all the modern paraphernalia of torpedoes, rams, and engines of destruction created by the genius of our countrymen, stimulated to its wonderful advancement in all the arts of offense and defense.

The testimony the gentleman has cited for his assertion of the indefensibility of New London, and the only testimony, is that Colonel Ould recently, in a conversation with one of our officers in relation to the exchange of prisoners, asserted that Charleston was untenable from the fire of our

batteries there. I must confess that it was with surprise bordering on astonishment that I heard that gentleman, above all others, cite on so important a point as this the testimony of rebels in arms against the Government of the United States. I well recollect at the last session with what wonderful indignation he pounced upon his friend and colleague from the same State [Mr. MILLER] because that colleague had made a charge upon him and had fortified it by the statement of one Robert Tyler, I think, whom my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] denounced as a rebel in arms against the Government, and as unworthy of being cited as witness before this loyal House. And yet the only testimony he offers to the fact he asserts is the testimony of this rebel colonel, and to a fact that is contradicted by the knowledge of every man on this floor, because Charleston is still tenable against the fire of our naval batteries that have been operating against it now for more than a year and a day-the lifetime allowed by the laws.

And the truth is, right here, Mr. Speaker, that the effective range of modern ordnance is at such an elevation-I ask my friend opposite to take notice -as that it cannot apply to naval vessels. To propel a shot to do execution at a range of four or five miles you must elevate your ordnance to thirty or forty degrees. You cannot do that on board of an iron-clad vessel. The very moment that a porthole is constructed for that purpose, or the hull of a vessel is constructed for that purpose, you have lost her efficiency as an iron-clad; and it is a fact known to every man on this floor that, from first to last, no iron-clad in our country, no iron-clad in Charleston harbor has attempted to throw a shot at that range toward the city of Charleston, for the reason that on board a vessel they could not elevate their guns at such a degree as to make their range effective. With batteries at the mouth of our harbor we could keep at sea four or five miles from shore an enemy's fleet by the very range spoken of.

Now, on this question of defensibility (and with this I shall close) I am willing to leave the case with the testimony of experts. My friend alleges that New London is not only undefended, but indefensible. That is his opinion. His opinion is entitled, I have no doubt, to great weight. I know that he has had some military experience. I recollect very well that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] read here one of the most amusing pieces of military autobiography that I ever heard before a public body, wherein was given the military experience of my. friend on that night, I believe either before or after the battle of Gettysburg, (my friend can correct me if I am wrong,) when my military critic lay, in his own language, upon his back, "gazing at the misty, mazy mysteries of the Milky Way." [Laughter.] When, therefore, my friend, relying upon that military experience, sets it up against the judgment of the authorities that are alluded to in the report of the majority of the committee, I must defer to him personally; but I must still claim that, before this House, the judgment of such authorities as we have cited is better than even his judgment.

And, sir, this question of defensibility is one that these lawyers here cannot determine. It is a question that the farmers here cannot determine. It is a question that the debaters here cannot determine. It is intrinsically a question of naval and military science and engineering, and a very uncertain one at the best. What say the military critics upon this question? General Cullen, chief of engineers of the army of the Potomac, who examined the subject with reference to this very question, gave the committee his opinion that no harbor in the United States was more easily defended. Major

General George B. McClellan, who,whatever may be said of his capactiy to lead an army in the field, history will certainly, with one accord, proclaim as the ablest or one of the ablest engineering officers and military scholars that this country has ever produced-he himself examined this harbor, with precise reference to this very question, with a knowledge of improved ordnance and the revolution in naval architecture, and gave it as his opinion that it was a very eligible place for a naval station.

General Dix, within whose military department the place is, has also made an examination of it with reference to that question. Admiral Stringham also made a similar examination. Commodore Van Brunt, who afterward commanded the Minnesota in that gallant fight that she made for two days against that unseemly monster of the ocean, the first Merrimac, the first iron-clad of which we had knowledge-that monster of whom my classical friend might perhaps truly say, in the language of the poet, "monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum,' that shapeless beast upon the waves, wallowing its way to the all but certain destruction of our Navy-he who fought her for two days in his wooden walls, has also given it as his opinion that this is a most eligible site for a naval station, and easily defended. And such was the judgment || of Admiral Foote, of Commodore Ringgold, of Admiral Paulding, and that sound, sensible commander in the Navy to-day, who has charge of the entire iron-clad department of this country at the Brooklyn navy-yard, Admiral Gregory. So that, on the question of defensibility, I must wait until I see better authorities arrayed against such a multitude of witnesses as these, whose reputation is not inferior to that of any others in this or any other lands.

Mr. Speaker, this place is offered to the Government. I heard something fall from my friend, which I was sorry to hear, about land speculation. My friend generally speaks pretty clearly, and I think I have not misunderstood him. My friend has intimated that there is a land speculation at New London. He intimates on this floor that which he did not intimate in committee, and which was proved before him, in the committee, to be a gross slander upon the constituents whom I represent. It may not be parliamentary, but it is true, nevertheless; and I do not propose to abate anything of the declaration.

Mr. KELLEY. Will the gentleman yield to me a moment?

Mr. BRANDEGEE. Certainly. Mr. KELLEY. It was argued, if it be proper to mention the matter, very elaborately before the committee that the establishment of an institution which would require more labor than there were people in the town must lead to inordinate speculation in land. You cannot, sir, double the population of a village without creating speculation in town lots. It is not possible to do so.

The SPEAKER. It is not in order to discuss what has occurred in committee.

Mr. BRANDEGEE. So I understand; and that sin is not upon my skirts.

Mr. Speaker, there is a fish which, I believe, is called the cuttle-fish-I am not now able to give the name by which it is known in natural historyand which, after it makes an attack and is pursued, surrounds itself with an inky cloud, and so attempts to escape from the assault which itself has provoked. I make, of course, no application of this fact of natural history to anything which has occurred within the last five minutes. But, sir, when a gentleman on this floor in a speech alludes to land speculation in connection with such a subject, I understand, (I don't know how it seems to other gentlemen,) but I understood an insinuation to be made against the parties proposing it, and to the effect that the Government is in some way to be cheated by these parties, and I did not understand the gentleman to refer to the legitimate increase of a city (which every man has a right to desire) arising from the location of a Government work. It may be that at some of the proposed sites there are harpies who would pick up the land, and interest themselves to make an unconscionable bargain with the Government. I understand that the gentleman does not mean that in reference to New London, by his disclaimer, and there is nothing left to reply to.

Mr. KELLEY. I did not mean that. I know

that this land was tendered as a gift to the Government; and I know that the mere doubling of the population of a town suddenly must create land speculations.

Mr. BRANDEGEE. That, Mr. Speaker, is a legitimate consideration. It naturally follows if there is any speculation in reference to land it is a speculation among themselves, where one man is the loser and another is the gainer, and with which the Government has nothing to do. My friend has taken back what I understood to be the natural inference from his remarks, that there was to be such land speculation as would be to the injury of the Government. I stated before the committee, and I state it now with a full knowledge of the business of that little town, that not a foot, not an inch of real estate or personal property there has changed hands since this subject was mentioned on account of the pending of this question. We always have felt that we have had too just a case to resort to any but fair means. Notwithstanding we had to contend against so great a city as Philadelphia in such a stormy forum as this, we have thought we could make it so clear to the House that they could not fail to see the merits of the case of New London.

but merely to state, based upon such arguments as I hope to adduce, beginning with the report of the commission to which the gentleman has referred, that I think League Island should be at once accepted, and that the minority report of the Committee on Naval Affairs should be adopted without delay, as recommending the place, of all others, most suited for the purposes of building an iron navy, and as offering reasons unanswerable, in my opinion, for the favorable action of the House.

There are several points in the majority report of the commission to which I ask your attention. I am not, Mr. Speaker, about to enter into an investigation of the birthplaces of its members. I do not intend to condescend to make such a small warfare upon worthy officers of the Navy who constituted it as to name for the sake of an argument against their fairness where they were born, but I will take occasion to say that Commodore John Marston, an able and accomplished gentleman, and a near relative of my friend and colleague from the first district of Pennsylvania, came from the State of Massachusetts; and that Commodore Gardiner, an equally meritorious officer, who signed the majority report of the com mission, was a native of the State of Maryland. It does not matter to me that Rear Admiral Stringham, whose life has been passed in the Navy to the glory and honor of the country, was reared

for the birthplace of Engineer Sanger. Philadelphia does claim her honored son, Professor A. D. Bache, but claiming him she does not here or elsewhere impugn the motives of others whose lives have illustrated a conscientious discharge of duty, or attempt to fasten upon them the narrow and selfish argument of locality before country. I wish now to do justice to the members of the commission, and to protest against any remarks tending to reflect upon their action, and to disclaim for them, as I do for myself, any idea of being influenced on this subject otherwise than for the advantage of the Navy.

Mr. Speaker, I throw out of consideration this

I ask you to consider it; if not now, to postpone it, that you may look at it more seriously and consider it from day to day, so that you may at last lay broad and deep the foundations of our Navy. You must do it. It is your duty to become a first-class naval Power, and if to-day you recklessly throw away the chance, at some hour when it is too late you will repent at the expense of your national honor and the position you ought to maintain as mistress of the seas. I ask you to pause before you decide, and to decide at last by merits and not by numbers. The action of today decides, for the illimitable future, the efficiency of your Navy, it may be, your position as a naval Power. It is at once your duty and your destiny to become a first-class naval nation. Lay, then, the foundations strong and deep, not in shallow waters or upon quicksands, but, seizing these great natural advantages, the want of which France vainly strives to supply by art, accept for the Government a station for that Navy which is yet to ride the mistress of the seas and wring from reluctant England the baton of the ocean.

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Connecticut in his closing words speaks for New London, so, I say, argues the Secretary of the Navy, in his annual report just made to the President, in his remarks favoring the location at League Island for a "navy-yard for iron vessels and machinery," that if now the United States loses this generous offer of the city of Philadelphia, gone forever is the opportunity. When I wanted the floor a few minutes ago, it was not that I wished the House to understand that I was about to make a lengthy speech on the subject; not that I desired to advocate League Island because it happened to be located in a portion of the district I am endeavoring to represent,

yard as the country really wants; but I will make an effort to show the House that the report of the majority of the commission proves almost conclusively, upon all the leading requirements necessary for a naval station for iron-clads, armature, and machinery, that League Island is unsurpassed in the depth and freshness of the waters flowing around it, in its nearness to every article used in building iron vessels, and its defensibility. The gentleman from Connecticut, I think, will, upon reflection, concede at least the latter point, and will not again speak of Philadelphia being outflanked in one of the earlier wars. He must

look to the history of our revolutionary struggle, and not forget, when he attempts to undervalue the defenses of the Delaware river, that hostile fleets have visited his favorite harbor, and that armies have marched and fought successfully at his very threshold. He has not told us that New London was outflanked; that Fort Griswold, on Groton Heights, was outflanked. He forgot to state that in September, 1781, a British fleet left the eastern end of Long Island in the evening, and that upon the next morning it appeared in front of New London and almost burnt it to ashes; while at the same time a British army attacked Fort Griswold, took its garrison, after a gallant defense by New England patriots, and after its surrender basely murdered the brave Colonel Ledyard. I am quoting history.

Such was the defensibility of New London. There have been improvements in building fortifications and in constructing vessels of war. Steam and iron have changed the character of attack and defense; but relatively the Delaware river is more capable of withstanding attacks of armies or navies than New London. League Island is further from the ocean by many miles, and the approach of a hostile fleet is almost impossible. So much, Mr. Speaker, for the point of defensibility, and upon it the majority of the commission decides "that the two sites may be regarded as equal.' I leave it to the House to say whether they can fail to determine that League Island artificially and naturally can be made unas sailable. My opinion is that immense outlays of money will be necessary to put New London in a proper state of defense.

But a few miles from the