98 
tery is low and contracted, rendering any accumulation of 
guns impracticable, if mounted on an ordinary rampart, and 
exposing the unprotected gunners to the fire of the sharp- 
shooters with which the enemy’s topmasts are filled.* 
It is no small merit of Montalembert to have devised a 
method of mounting guns which should meet this case. Not- 
withstanding that the French Corps of Engineers rejected the 
system in its intended application, and disclaimed, as an engi- 
neer, its author, it nevertheless constructed, in 1786, for the 
defence of the roadstead and harbor of Cherbourg, forts which 
are in reality almost copied from his designs.t Following 
the example of the French, other European nations have 
adopted, for the defence of their seaports, works of the 
same character, of which the forts of Cronstadt and Sebas- 
topol, once made familiar to us, in their outward appearance, 
by the Pictorials, are recent specimens, and, as we have 
already seen, Colonel Williams introduced them into our 
country in 1807, by the construction of Castles Williams 
and Clinton, and Fort Gansevoort, New York harbor. 
An objection urged against casemates, and a grave one, 
since it is aimed at one of their most important attributes, iS, 
that the embrasures of masonry are dangerous to the gun- 
ners, from their outward flaring surfaces reflecting into the 
interior the enemy’s missiles. Montalembert was well aware 
of this objection, calling the embrasure, in its ordinary form, 
a “murderous funnel,” (entonnoir meurtriére,) and his sage 
* The topmasts of many of the vessels of Commodore Farragat’s 
fleet in the attack on Forts Jackson and St. Philip contained boat 
howitzers, destined to fire canister at the gunners of the low batteries 
' of those works. 
t The celebrated Carnot, then an officer of sonig engineers, but 
who adopted the views of Montalembert, writes to him, “You have 
MO Wisk hx sdvetiaries Gus anaissica that wett-comeacncied OM 
Mates are a good thing,” &e. (Zasrnow, Histoire de la Fortification.) 
