onfidence in the power which I possess, which is no less than to be
the means, should I think proper, of giving to the world a system
which must of necessity sweep all military marines from the ocean, by
giving the weaker maritime powers advantages over the stronger, which
the stronger cannot prevent."

It is interesting to note that, about a hundred years later,
Vice-Admiral Fournier of the French Navy stated before a Parliamentary
committee of investigation that, if France had possessed a sufficient
number of submersibles, and had disposed them strategically about her
coasts and the coasts of her possessions, these vessels could have
controlled the trade routes of the world. He said also that the
fighting value of a sufficient number of submersibles would
reestablish the balance of power between England and France.

The history of naval warfare during the last few months has confirmed
the opinions of these two authorities, although in a manner which they
in no way anticipated.

Direct comparison is the usual method by which the human mind
estimates values. We would measure the strength of two men by pitting
them against each other in physical encounter; in the same way, we are
prone to measure the combative effect of weapons by pitting them in
conflict against other weapons. But modern warfare is of so complex a
nature that direct comparisons fail, and only a careful analysis of
military experience determines the potentiality of a weapon and its
influence on warfare. Robert Fulton and Admiral Fournier both
indicated that they believed in the submersible's supremacy in actual
encounter with capital ships. The war, so far, has shown that, in
action between fleets, the submersible has played a negative part. In
the Jutland Bank battle, the submersible, handicapped in speed and
eyesight, took as active a part, as a Jack Tar humorously put it, "as
a turtle might in a cat fight." Not even under the extraordinary
conditions of the bombardment in the Dardanelles, when the
circumstances were such as lent themselves strikingly to submarine
attack, did these vessels score against the fleet in action.[1]

It is easy to understand why the submersible did not take a vital part
in any of the major naval actions. In the naval battle of to-day we
have a number of very high-speed armored craft fighting against one
another over ranges extending up to 17,000 yards. There is a constant
evolution in the position of the ships which it i