"The board recommends, in consequence of its conclusions, that five of these boats be purchased for use in submarine defence as follows:
"One for the School of Submarine Defence for experimental work, one for the eastern entrance of Long Island Sound, one for the entrance to Chesapeake Bay, one for San Francisco harbor, and one for Puget Sound.
"The necessity for this kind of defence in the four localities named needs no demonstration to those acquainted with them.
Arthur Murray,
"Major, Artillery Corps, President."
The recommendations of this board were submitted to Congress, and the Senate passed the bill for the purchase of the Protector to enable the authorities to test out the merits of this type of boat as an adjunct to our coast defence, but at this time it seemed as if certain politicians and financial groups were able to control the policy of the United States Government in its development of the submarine. The result indicated, at least, that these influences had been sufficiently strong to take out of the hands of the Navy Department and of the officers connected with the Coast Artillery, who had charge of the laying of our mines and the protection of our coast from hostile invasion, the right to specify the kind of appliances they should use. Instead of leaving the question of defence of our country in the hands of the expert officers who had been trained to study the problem, Congress in this instance specified the exclusive use of a type of boat which did not possess the characteristics called for by these expert students of defence.
Strange as it may seem, the opportunity of the United States to be a leader in the development of the type of boat which Germany has proven to be of such great value was lost by the dictation of a manufacturer of gloves from an inland county. It is a sad commentary on our laws that such a state of affairs could exist, but I accidentally happened to learn that this was the case in this instance, and I fear it has been the case in many other instances where financial and political influences have been permitted to overrule the recommendation of officers of the army and navy.
The Protector had been built by private capital at the suggestion of the Board of Construction of the United States Navy, at that time composed of Admirals Melville, O'Neil, Bradford, Bowles, and Captain Sigsbee. In 1901 I had been called to Washington by a telegram from the late Senator Hale, who was then chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs in the Senate, and was asked to submit plans and specifications for a submarine torpedo boat. Accordingly, I submitted plans for the three types above referred to. The Board of Construction complimented me upon the plans, and stated that they believed the plans of the vessels I had proposed showed great superiority over any type of vessel that had been heretofore proposed, either in this country or abroad, but at the same they stated that all appropriations made by Congress had specified the particular type of boat that must be used, and the Navy Department did not have any authority to authorize the construction of a different type. They suggested further that if I or my friends had sufficient capital to construct such a vessel, they would see that it had a fair trial upon its merits, and if it proved of value to the service they would recommend its adoption, and they did not believe that Congress would then ignore their recommendations. Consequently the Protector was built. Her performances and capabilities for defence of the United States were strongly endorsed by the Board of Officers which had tested her, and many of her characteristics have been copied by all European builders of submarines.
After the Senate passed the bill authorizing her purchase, the matter was referred to a sub-committee in the House. As the boat had been built by private capital, and the lifetime savings of a number of friends, as well as all my own capital, were tied up in her, I was naturally desirous to learn if the House committee having the matter in charge was also going to recommend her purchase. One day I called at the committee room to inquire. There was no one present in the main committee room, so I took a seat at the table. After sitting there for a few moments, I heard a conversation in the chairman's room, adjoining the general committee room. Soon the voices took on an angry tone, and I heard one member of Congress accuse the chairman of the sub-committee which had the matter in charge of intention to report unfavorably the recommendations for the purchase of the Protector. I recognized the voice of the gentleman who was making the accusation as that of an old retired general. He did not use polite language in accusing the chairman of the sub-committee of intending to defeat the purchase of the Protector in the interest of the company which had had sufficient influence to maintain a monopoly of submarine boat construction in the United States up to that time.
The chairman of this sub-committee did report unfavorably, and, as I have already stated, a manufacturer of gloves from an inland section of the country was able to defeat the recommendation for the adoption of a means of defence for this country which the best qualified officers in the United States service of both the army and the navy had recommended as of great value, and superior to other defensive means known to them at that time. It was this type of vessel which Germany later developed and which has so far been able to keep great fleets of almost the entire world from her shores. Recently the ex-member of Congress referred to in this connection was sentenced to imprisonment for attempt to defraud the government in other matters.