REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY, Washington, D. C., September 30, 1889. SIR: I have the honor to present for your information the following report upon the duties and operations of the Engineer Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889: OFFICERS OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS. The number of officers holding commissions in the Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, at the end of the fiscal year was 109. Six additional second lieutenants have been added to the Corps by appointment from the Military Academy, to date from June 12, 1889, but they did not become available for duty until after the close of the fiscal year, and are, therefore, not included in the strength of the Corps. On the 30th of June, 1889, the officers were distributed as follows: Office Chief of Engineers.. Office Chief of Engineers, fortifications, and river and harbor works Fortifications and river and harbor works Fortifications, river and harbor works, and division engineer.. Fortifications, river and harbor works, and Board of Engineers.. Division engineer and Board of Engineers Division engineer, Board of Engineers, Board of Visitors, and Mississippi River Mississippi River Commission Mississippi River Commission and Missouri River Commission Washington Aqueduct Post of Willets Point, Engineer School of Application, and Battalion of Engineers.... Battalion of Engineers and Engineer School of Application.. Under orders.... Absent in Europe under orders Incapacitated for active service and on indefinite leave of absence Leave of absence... Sick leave of absence Detached, on duty with Light-Honse Establishment, at Military Academy, 1 14 20 109 3 The officers detached were on duty as follows: Col. John G. Parke, Superintendent Military Academy until June 24, 1889 . Capt. John G. D. Knight, instructor of engineering at the U. S. Infantry and Capts. Thomas W. Symons and James L. Lusk, assistants to the Engineer Com- Capt. George McC. Derby and Lieut. John Biddle, on duty with Company E, 2 Lieut. Theodore A. Bingham, secretary and disbursing officer of the Missouri Lieut. Hiram M. Chittenden, on duty with the Missouri River Commission.. Lieut. John Millis, assistant to engineer third light-house district.. 1 1 4 1 1 20 SEA-COAST DEFENSES. The permanent defenses of the country remain in the same inefficient condition that has obtained since the close of the civil war. No appropriation for new construction has been made since that of February 10, 1875. The act of September 22, 1888, appropriated $100,000 for the protection, preservation, and repair of existing works. This has been expended or pledged for such minor repairs as have appeared most necessary and for the care of the defenses. The act of March 2, 1889, appropriated $100,000 for the same purpose for the current fiscal year, and this appropriation will be exhausted at its close. These two appro priations have been carefully allotted among the several works according to their needs, and only the repairs most urgently required have been considered. Many of these works are still of value in connection with new works projected, and the estimate submitted is for their protection, preservation, and repair. Our country, great in population, wealth, and natural resources, prominent among the nations of the earth in intelligence, ingenuity, and energy, and with an overflowing treasury, is absolutely helpless against the attack of any third-rate power possessing modern iron-clad vessels armed with heavy rifled cannon. It would appear unnecessary to present arguments to show the folly of continuing such a condition of affairs, or to prove the necessity of protecting our most important sea-ports and harbors by all the appliances known to the present state of the science and art of war. The reports of my predecessors have fully and ably set forth our deplorable condition, and the reasons and means for bettering it. I call special attention to the annual reports of the Chief of Engineers for 1881, 1882, and 1884, and earnestly suggest a careful study of the facts and recommendations therein set forth. The following extract from the Report of The Board of Engineers is presented here as bearing on this matter: The necessity for immediately beginning the work of reconstructing our sea-coast defenses has been so fully demonstrated heretofore in the annual reports of the Chief of Engineers that no repetition of the arguments is called for here. The only valid reason for delay has been the lack of guns and the impossibility of fabricating in this country the types demanded by modern progress. Thanks to the recent action of Congress in granting liberal appropriations to prepare the needful factory and to enable our steel manufacturers to procure the needful plant, this inability no longer exists. By existing contracts the new gun-factory buildings at Watervliet Arsenal, capable of turning out 12-inch and smaller guns, will be completed by December, 1889; and by December, 1890, plant capable of fabricating annually ten 8-inch, six 10-inch, and four 12-inch guns will be in place. The development of steel industries of the country in the line of heavy ordnance construction has made satisfactory progress; and contracts are now let for supplying the steel for fabricating twenty-four 8-inch, twenty-four 10-inch, and fifteen 12-inch guns, that required for forty-four guns, including all three calibers, to be delivered by August, 1892. Evidently emplacements should be ready to receive this armament as soon as completed. No funds have been appropriated for this purpose, and even if granted at the coming session of Congress they will probably not become available before July 1,1890. At the estimated rate of fabrication at Watervliet Arsenal ten 8-inch guns will be well advanced toward completion by May, 1891, and three 10-inch guns by May, 1892, while by January, 1893, twenty-four 8-inch, seven 10-inch, and four 12-inch guns should be ready for service. The Corps of Engineers will thus have only nine months to prepare emplacements for ten 8-inch guns; twenty-one months for three 10-inch guus; and thirty months for twenty-four 8-inch, seven 10-inch, and four 12-inch guns. Fully this time will be required, and no further argument can be needed to prove that the requisite funds should be granted at the next session of Congress. The necessity for immediate action is hardly less in the case of mortars. Contracts for the material and for finishing and assembling thirty cast-iron steel-hooped rifled 12-inch mortars are now let, the whole to be delivered by August, 1892, and they will thus be on hand for mounting by the time the batteries are ready to receive their armament. The Board on Fortifications, organized under the act of March 3, 1885, and the permanent Board of Engineers have made a careful study of the whole problem, and an efficient system of defense has been prepared and is awaiting construction. It only remains for Cougress to give life to the project by making the necessary appropriations. The main features of this project are: (1) Armaments of the heaviest rifled guns mounted on disappearing carriages, which, while widely dispersed, can concentrate their fire on the enemy's vessels, and which, in range and penetration of projectiles, will equal if not exceed the heaviest fire that can be brought against them by the most powerful fleet, thus keeping the latter at a safe distance or destroying it while attempting to pass the mined areas. (2) A well developed system of submarine mines planted in the channels and roadways for the purpose of holding the vessels of the enemy under the fire of our guns and preventing their running the batteries. and reaching the harbors and cities. (3) The protection of these mined areas from counter-mining and removal by batteries of rapid-firing guns of small caliber and wide field of fire. The great increase in effective range of the present heavy rifles over those of former years has greatly changed the extent and character of the defense. Where formerly 1,000 yards was deemed a safe allowance for the position of fortifications in advance of the city or depot to be defended, 14,000 to 17,000 (8 to 10 miles) is now considered not too far for the exterior line of defense. The city of New York is a fair example. The Battery for an interior and Castle Williams and works on Bedloe's Island for an exterior line, were at one time ample for protection; with the increase in range and accuracy of fire, the Narrows became the necessary exterior line, and now it has advanced to Sandy Hook and Coney Island. Detailed projects for the defense of our principal sea-board cities and roadsteads have been or are being prepared. Those relating to the gun |