This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Captain Preston V. Mercer, U. S. Navy.—The article by Commander M. M. Sarmento Rodrigues in the May 1951, issue of the “Naval Institute” was very interesting and I have no doubt that the 67° roll occurred. This letter is only intended to correct the record because an authoritative publication like the “Naval Institute” might well establish in the minds of many seafarers an incorrect figure.
Some day I hope to write the whole story, but for the present it will be sufficient to say that the U. S. S. Dewey on December 18, 1944, in a typhoon rolled repeatedly beyond 75°, the limit of the inclinometer. This is a matter of U. S. Navy official record. The U. S. Aylwin, also a Farragut class destroyer, rolled 70° in the same storm. In each case the ships were stopped in the trough, hence their situation was different from that of the Lima, which had the inertia effect of her way added to the wind and sea effect.
The U. S. S. Tabberer, DE-418, while in the trough and making 10 knots in the same typhoon rolled 72°.
Three destroyers, two Farragut class and one 2100 ton class capsized.
These ships all rolled deeply to leeward rarely passing the vertical to windward.
Arctic Ice
(See page 487, May, 1951, Proceedings.)
Captain George F. Kosco, U. S. Navy.-—-In the article on Schiff 45, Admiral Eyssen is quoted as having made a comparison between Arctic and Antarctic ice. His deductions are probably true for his particular trip as he had to take his ship between the Arctic Ice Pack and the Asiatic Continent (in the Arctic) and had to accept the ice conditions—In the Antarctic he had a clear field to operate in the North—and consequently he only operated in “Rotten Ice” at the outer limits of the Antarctic Continent.
Antarctic ice is just as tough, if not tougher to operate, in, as Arctic ice—at least that was the opinion of the U. S. Naval personnel of “Operation Highjump.”
Wireless in Warfare
(See page 117, February, 1951, Proceedings.)
Dr. Louis B. Amyot.—In the opening paragraph of his article, “Wireless in Warfare 1885-1914,” Mr. Bigelow states that “The first man to send a message through the air without wires was Sir Thomas Preece, in 1885.”
With all due respect for the pioneers in wireless communication, I must disagree with the foregoing statement. In 1868, six years before the birth of Marconi, Dr. Mahlon Loomis, of Washington, D. C. carried the first two-way “wireless” communication between two mountain peaks in Virginia over a distance of eighteen miles. As in the case of many inventors, the utilization of his invention met with a series of adversities. Powerful financial backing obtained in 1869 was lost in the Black Friday panic of that year. The great Chicago fire of 1871 eliminated the financial support for the venture. In 1873, Congress passed bills in his favor, but failed to make any material appropriations.
Dr. Loomis was a practitioner of dentistry and a pioneer in wireless telegraphy. He obtained his patent for “Improvement in Telegraphing” on July 30, 1872. A copy of
Letters Patent No. 129,971 may be obtained from the United States Patent Office.
May the readers of the Proceedings be informed of this matter?
Sovereignty Is No Giveaway Gimmick
(See page 505, May, 1951 Proceedings)
Mr. N. W. Goodwin.—(Rear Admiral Harley Cope has been not only inaccurate but misleading in his article on the World Federalist groups in the May Proceedings: He makes the statement that the passing of a world government resolution by three quarters of the states would have made the calling of a U. S. Constitutional Convention mandatory. This is completely untrue since the resolution only called on the Federal Government to request the sovereign nations of the world to send delegates to a world constitutional convention.
If the general public is not aware of the “Beliefs and Purposes” of the United World Federalists it is because it has not taken the trouble to learn. The public has been invited to meetings without number, the U.W.F. has been on the radio and in the newspapers and copies of “Beliefs and Purposes” have been distributed by hundreds of thousands, as many as funds would permit.
The following numbered statements will, I think, be recognized as facts and beyond argument:
(1) No organization of citizens can force the U. S. Federal Government to enter or form a world government. They can only urge our Government seriously to work on the problem.
(2) Before a world government could be formed which the U.S.A. would enter, the following steps must be taken:
(2a) The Congress of the United States must be sufficiently convinced of the necessity of the move before it will issue a call for the necessary world constitutional convention.
(2b) If and when a tentative world constitution is written it must be sufficiently satisfactory to the Congress to persuade them to introduce an enabling amendment to the Constitution.
(2c) The various States must be convinced that such a move is for the good of the country before they will ratify such an amendment.
I do not think that a world government could be “put over” on the United States while the people were looking the other way; and I am quite certain that the United States Government and people would not approve a world government which deprived them of control over immigration, finance, our own constitutional guarantees and such internal affairs.
Just what is this portion of national sovereignty which we are asked to surrender? It is only the right to declare and make war on another state. So far as I know there have been only two occasions when the United States has declared war before a state of war actually existed due to the action of another nation. These declarations were against Mexico and Spain and, historically speaking I do not think we can be proud of either war. The Spanish-American war was mainly forced on us by the “yellow journalism” of certain newspapers. Of what actual use was our sovereign right to declare war in 1812, 1917 and 1941. It was an anticlimax on December 8, 1941.
Admiral Cope has neglected at least two historic facts. (1) The groups of people under one national government have been growing larger for four hundred years. (2) No league or alliance of sovereign nations has ever succeeded in keeping the peace where one of its more powerful members was involved.
There is eventually going to be a government for the whole earth. Are we going to be a leader in forming this government and have the kind we can live with, or are we going to have it imposed on us by force when the Eurasian continent and Africa get together under one head and gang up on us?'
Commander Frederick D. Powers, U. S. Navy (Ret.).—In the first place, “Sovereignty,” in any nation of free people, resides in the people. Any change in the form of government which those free people may wish to adopt does not, of itself, mean giving away that sovereignty. Suppose the sovereign people of Belgium-Luxemburg, Canada, France, Great Britain, Netherlands and the United States of America decide to unite in one Federal Union, similar in general form to our own Union. The nations concerned would not surrender any “Sovereignty.” The peoples of those nations merely would take back some of the “Sovereignty” which they have previously given to their present governments, and would delegate that part of their “Sovereignty” to the new government. In all respects, except for the abovedescribed delegation, the present governments and their powers would remain the same. They would continue to function with all of their old powers, except those delegated to the new government.
Probably we would cease to have six navies, and would have only one. In such an event the American taxpayer would be saved much money. Neither Admiral Cope, the Editor, nor the lowliest Ensign believes that it cost us merely one hundred million dollars to maintain our Navy for a year “before Korea,” regardless of what information (or misinformation) Operations furnished to the Admiral. The San Diego Chamber of Commerce brags that the Navy spends more than that in one year in San Diego county alone. I think we can all agree that Mr. Justice Roberts’ alleged remark, “that we could save five billion dollars per year on our Navy alone,” is at least as nearly accurate as is the Admiral’s statement that we operate our Navy for $100,000,000.
Admiral Cope states “my discussion will be centered on United World Federalists, for the objections to the proposals of this organization apply to all world government organizations.” Also, “these organizations . . . violently excoriate each other.” Perhaps, if they are so convinced that their plans are unlike, objections to one do not apply to the other. I have talked with Raymond Swing, Mr. Justice Roberts, Stringfellow Barr, Legionnaire (1st W W) Clarence Streit, Admiral Standley, and many others in these organizations, and have yet to hear either side “excoriate” the other.
Admiral Cope states that a federation of the Atlantic Pact nations would require an amendment to the United Nations Charter. I believe he is mistaken. I believe that under Art. 57 such federation is permitted; nay, welcomed.
Admiral Cope says “if we had no tariff barriers Denmark could deliver butter at the docks in New York for 11 cents a pound, and Sweden could deliver pre-fabricated houses for $1100 apiece.” Presumably, since in his criticism of such delivery he brings in Mr. Justice Roberts’ name, he is referring to Atlantic Union. Well, the Atlantic Union Resolution does not include either Sweden or Denmark, so that seems to be a nonsequitur.
The retired Chid f European Unit, Division of International Economy, Department of Commerce, has made an analysis of the effect of Atlantic Union on employment and trade in the U. S. He finds that approximately 5/8ths of all U. S. industries would not be affected directly by such union, although most of the 5/8ths would benefit indirectly. He finds that 27% would benefit directly, and that less than 1/ 12th would be adversely affected. Such analyses are his business; I presume the above may be accepted as fairly accurate.
As a loyal citizen I subscribe wholeheartedly to the definition of Americanism in Admiral Cope’s article. Also, I am wholeheartedly in favor of the union of the free people of the.Atlantic under a Constitution somewhat similar to our own. Such loyalties do not conflict at all. A careful study of the Atlantic Union Resolution now before the Congress of the United States will clearly show that there is no conflict whatever between its proposals and 100 per cent Americanism.
I believe that Admiral Cope is utterly mistaken in his major and minor premises. I will and do maintain and defend his right to his mistaken opinions.
Incidentally, at least two Past Presidents of the Institute are members of the Atlantic Union Advisory Committee. Also, each one happens to be an ex-Chief Of Naval Operations.
■ ★