mounted forward, firing on both sides and ahead; two 6-pounder and four 3-pounder Hotchkiss guns. These Hotchkiss guns, many of which are mounted on all the new ships, are very powerful weapons, as the 6-pounder will pierce 2 inches of armor and the 3-pounder 2 inches at a distance of 1,000 yards.

The "Petrel" is a small gunboat of 870 tons displacement, length 175 feet, breadth 31 feet, and draught 12 feet, building at Baltimore. She is designed for a speed of 13 knots, with single-screw engines. A water-tight steel deck is worked over the machinery, and the coal is stowed for additional protection. The armament consists of four 6-inch rifles mounted in projecting sponsons; 6-pounder Hotchkiss guns mounted on the poop and forecastle, and 3-pounders mounted on the rail. The rig is that of a barkentine spreading 4,800 square feet of canvas.

Ships of this class are very useful for cruising service, particularly for river navigation in China and other countries, owing to their light draught and handi

ness.

It may be said that the fourteen unarmored ships are all excellent in design and the equals of any of their class in the world. The fact that they are only partially protected from shot, and that their crews will be somewhat exposed in battle is remarked by many of our people, but it must be remembered that such unarmored ships form the bulk of all foreign navies. England and France each has about 70 ironclads, while they would equip in time of war at least two or three hundred unarmored ships and fast mailsteamers for cruising purposes.

It is a source of great satisfaction that all the heavy guns for our new ships are designed by the Bureau of Ordnance and built in this country at the Washington Navy Yard, the South Boston Iron Works and the West Point Foundry. Those thus far finished and tested have given excellent results, and are the equals of any guns of their calibre in the world.

The matter of torpedoes is being considered by the Bureau of Ordnance, at the Torpedo Station, and by officers specially interested in the subject, and we may rest assured that the result will be satisfactory. The "Stiletto," a fast boat built by Herreshoff, has been purchased for

the navy, and Cramp & Sons have taken the contract for a new submarine torpedo boat.

Our sailors have been supplied with magazine rifles and all the accoutrements necessary in service on shore. There have been numerous instances in the history of this country, of important service rendered on shore by our sailors in all parts of the world, and the necessity for such service is likely to arise at any time. Our sailors are accordingly drilled in infantry and machine-gun tactics, and prepared for duty in dispersing mobs, in street fighting, and in camping for a limited time.

The completion of all the ships now building will give us seven ironclads and fourteen unarmored cruisers of different sizes. This fleet will be about one-tenth the effective force of England and France and much inferior to the navies of Italy, Germany and Russia, and it is probable that each succeeding Congress will add to our fleet. In the appropriation bill this year the House provided for three fine steel cruisers and one large ironclad. The Senate, it is said, will strike out the provision for the ironclad and provide instead for three additional cruisers like the "Yorktown."

Since unarmored ships are not equal to the duty of defending a coast against heavy ironclads it would seem manifest that seven armored ships, two of which will not be finished for years to come, will be insufficient for the protection of about 7,000 miles of coast-1,000 miles to each ship. Spain, a country with which we may have complications, as in the affair of the Virginius," owing to the proximity of the West Indies, is building up a powerful navy, five of her unarmored ships being larger and therefore superior to ours, while one magnificent ironclad, the "Pelayo," of 9,000 tons, will be far more powerful than “Maine or "Texas." These are cogent reasons for adding a few more armored vessels to our navy.

our

fact is conceded by military men who appreciated the strategic advantage of the Southern coast during the Civil War, and who knew that its possession from the start greatly encouraged the South, protecting their communications and giving them hope of foreign recognition. Without the coast defences they would have been hemmed in from the beginning -attacked in front and rear-and could not have held out as they did.

Our strong navy in 1868 alone induced England to accede to the policy of arbitration. Nothing else will explain Justin McCarthy's admission in his "History of Our Own Times": "They [the

of a government who have to submit to rigorous and humiliating terms of peace." Will an Englishman ever submit to "rigorous and humiliating terms" if he can help himself?

We can never enforce the Monroe Doctrine without a strong navy. This fact must be apparent. No foreign power that may seek to violate its principles will pay any attention to our protests if we have no force to back our policy. A lion will not arbitrate with a lamb when he may eat the latter. We must either abandon the Monroe Doctrine entirely, or provide ourselves with the navy necessary to its enforcement.

largely paid as any other skilled worker. The arrest of manufacturing enterprises in the country by unwise reductions of the tariff would undoubtedly reduce the aggregate earnings of the 172,726 blacksmiths by several millions of dollars annually, and to a great extent affect the comfort of the eight hundred thousand persons dependent upon them for support. Are the "76,241 butchers" (whom the President adduces as not at all dependent upon the Protective Tariff) just as certain to find a good market for porterhouse steaks and sirloin roasts if an injurious reduction in tariff duties shall cripple the resources and reduce the wages of many thousands of men engaged in the protected industries? A ranchman largely interested in the growth of cattle on the Western plains said to me last week that a serious and prolonged strike of the laboring men in but one large city affected the selling price of cattle in Chicago, because the inability to buy and consume beef was one of the first effects of the strike. If, instead of a voluntary and temporary strike, laboring men should be struck and permanently crippled by Democratic hostility to the Protective system, the "76,241 butchers" who, the President thinks, are not to be affected by the tariff, would at least find a good deal of leisure on their hands, and the shipment of beef to unprofitable markets abroad would undoubtedly increase.

Not to go into useless detail, it may be safely asserted that every class which the President has placed in the list of those unaffected by tariff reduction would in fact be immediately influenced therebysometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, and often disastrously. The entire argument of the President is based on the old' and often refuted Democratic argument that the tariff helps only those engaged in the "protected industries," and that it is injurious to all outside that number. The opponents of Protection refuse to see the remarkable inter-dependence of industries which constantly grows closer in every community and every State, and which may be now seen throughout the Union in harmonious adaptation and effective co-operation.

Strangely enough, the President neglects, either from design or oversight, to notice what effect the serious reduction

of the tariff would have on the 1,810,256 men employed in transportation, viz., on the railroads, coast-wise vessels, river steamers and barges, canal, wagon and stage lines. These varied modes of transportation represent an investment of thousands of millions of dollars of American money and give employment to nearly two millions of men, whose earuings support nine millions of people. Whatever impairs American manufacturing, strikes at the great transportation interests. Iron ore, admitted free from Spain, coal admitted free from Nova Scotia, wool admitted free from Australia, all favor British ships at the expense of American railroads. The further the President goes in the direction of the doctrine laid down in his message, the more direct and the more deadly is the assault upon the whole organization of American industries.

It might have proved advantageous to the President, as it would assuredly have proved interesting to the people, if he had caused an accurate official inquiry to be made into the close connection of the transportation and manufacturing interests, and how both in turn are indissolubly linked with the agricultural interest, to the great profit of all three. The very figures which the President quotes prove the immense home market which the farmers have in the United States. In round numbers, over seven millions are engaged in agriculture, while nearly ten millions are engaged in other industrial pursuits, and constitute, with the families dependent on them, an enormous market for the products of the farm. Every enlargement of that home market is a boon to the farmer, while its diminution would be his direct and irreparable loss.

It might also have been interesting if the President had extended his inquiries into the number of "carpenters," and "masons," and "plasterers," and "dressmakers," and "tailors," and "blacksmiths," and "butchers," who have been called to their respective employments in consequence of the general prosperity of the country brought about by the influence of the tariff, and whose earnings would be seriously reduced by the destruction of Protection. At that point the President would perhaps have found