REFUELING WARSHIPS AT SEA. 181 



DISCUSSION. 



The Chairman : — Gentlemen, you have heard the very interesting paper by Mr. 

 Spencer Miller, and seen in detail the operation of the apparatus for coaling ships at sea. 

 I trust we have present some gentlemen who have had practical experience with this appara- 

 tus and that they will give us their views on the subject and any additional information 

 which may have come their way. I know that Mr. Miller has worked very hard over this 

 matter. I have personal knowledge of his identification with this problem for over twenty 

 years, and the success which has been attained is undoubtedly due to his earnest, intelligent 

 and persistent effort. There must be some one here who has had experience on board ship 

 with this apparatus. (A pause.) We have a written communication on this subject, which 

 the Secretary will read. 



Captain J. H. Glennon, U. S. N. (Communicated) : — The necessity for coaling at sea 

 is brought home very strongly by the present war. It is, however, nothing new, as ships 

 coaled with colliers alongside in the Spanish War off Santiago, and in such weather as pre- 

 vailed could have coaled continuously. The Massachusetts once attempted to coal, head on to 

 the port, and had to cast off her collier, as this was not a good heading. A day or two 

 afterward she was absent from the battle off Santiago because she had gone to Guanta- 

 namo to coal. Relative to the Wyoming coaling in port at Guantanamo, there is no diffi- 

 culty in coaling from two colliers in port, and it is probably the best way. But due to un- 

 symmetrical loading and list of ship loaded, one collier may have eventually to regulate her 

 speed to that of the other. 



The constant tension engine will probably allow 100 tons per hour to be transferred 

 from a collier to a warship, and it may be placed on another vessel. There is little difficulty 

 in managing the operation, but the durability of the various appliances for successive coalings 

 has not, so far as I know, been determined. 



Captain A. P. Niblack, U. S. N., Member of Council (Communicated) : — In these 

 days of the discussion of naval preparedness and efficiency, it is pleasant to be able to state 

 that in matters of supply of the fleet in its relation to sea keeping, the United States Navy 

 stands pre-eminent and in a class all by itself, there being no second. Our repair ships are a 

 marvel of up-to-date efficiency. Our cold storage and fresh provision supply ships are a con- 

 stant wonder to foreigners. Our battleships all carry forty days' cold storage for the entire 

 crew, and five months' dry provisions. In no other navy is more than a few days' fresh 

 provisions carried. In sea keeping, in radius of action of our ships as to fuel supply carried 

 on board, in competition as to the efficient utilization of stores, and in the thought given to 

 operating at long distances from base, our results are very gratifying. 



Also our Navy alone goes in for special naval colliers (coal and oil), and we alone of all 

 navies have thirteen large modern ones, not to mention eleven older and smaller ones. None, 

 however, of the newer ones are as efficient as they should be, simply for the lack of vigorous 

 initiative in bringing them completely up to date, and finishing their equipment. Having 

 paid about one million dollars apiece for them, there is now needed about $25,000 apiece 

 to finish them. 



All should have spare hammock hooks, cooking facilities, and equipment for extra men 

 for transport. All should have gun emplacements. All should have oil pumps, and work- 

 ing facilities for carrying fuel oil. Most of them should have the best and latest arrange- 



