Let me recommend you 'The New York Times' search engine, very informative and "user-friendly" indeed:
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/%22engineer-in-chief+of+the+navy%22/from18900101to18960101/allresults/2/
As for Commander (Promoted to Rear Admiral 3 March 1899) George Wallace Melville, some sources affirm that he was appointed Engineer in Chief of the Navy only 6 December, 1900, but there was a book "Remarks of Engineer-in-Chief George W. Melville, U.S. Navy, in Presenting to Colonel John P. Nicholson, U.S.V., Two Model Naval Guns Constructed of Historic Material" by George W. Melville published in 1894.
http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=yaehtgAACAAJ
Yours,
Yan S.
A> /Dear Professor Pinney,
A> / My thanks for your comprehensive answer to those three questions. I
A> /knew/ I'd seen the Chief Engineer's name somewhere, but since I didn't
A> know what it was, I couldn't look it up in an index!
A> Yours,
A> /Alastair W/
A> On 30/12/2013 23:13, Thomas C. Pinney wrote:
>> Dear Commander Wilson,
>> I think that RK's "evasiveness" is explained by the fact that
>> Henley was unable to pay the fees that RK was getting by 1895. The
>> last of RK's poems to appear in the _National Observer_ was "The Dove
>> of Dacca," May 1893. The entry in CK's diary for 22 April 1893 is:
>> "Only £15.15.0 for Dove of Dacca from Nat. Obs. Better nothing at
>> all." The "Song of the Banjo" appeared in the _New Review_, June
>> 1895; that is the last thing of RK's published by Henley. I do not
>> think that there was any rupture between the two men.
>> The chief engineer is Admiral George Melville: see RK's letter to
>> Henry James, 15 December 1894 and n. 3 (_Letters_, II, 163-4).
>> I can't add anything to your discussion of the "colonist verses."
>> lWith best wishes,
>> Tom Pinney
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* To exchange information and views on the life and work of
>> Rudyard Kipling [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Alastair
>> Wilson [[log in to unmask]]
>> *Sent:* 30 December 2013 14:22
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* CARRINGTON EXTRACTS - Questions 8,9 and 10
>> Question 8. On 03 December 1894, Carrie noted "Henley writes asking
>> for something for /New Review/.Rud answers evasively*." *Is there a
>> recorded reason why he should have been evasive? We have found none
>> such, and the meeting between RK and Henley in London the previous
>> June had not been adversely commented on in Carrie's diaries.
>> Arguably, Kipling owed his swift rise to fame as a poet and author to
>> Henley, who had 'discovered' him in 1889. Equally, RK and the
>> remainder of the 'Henley Regatta' had helped to make /The Scots
>> Observer. /Did Kipling feel that Henley was trying to 'use' him? In
>> the event, as recorded in our notes on 'The Song of the Banjo', that
>> poem was first published in the /New Review/ in June 1895; possibly RK
>> had second thoughts, and gave Henley something he could use: and
>> later, in 1897 Kipling was trying to secure a state pension for Henley
>> which doesn't suggest a falling out.
>> /
>> /Question 9./' /McAndew's Hymn ' was much admired by marine engineers
>> the world over. In the Extracts for 12 December 1894, the entry reads
>> "Eng.-in-Chief US Navy writes about M'Andrew" (/sic/). I have been
>> unable to find out who he was at this time. The approbation is
>> recorded in most of the biographies, but no name is given, and
>> 'Google' has failed me. I have a feeling that I may have read the
>> name, but I cannot for the life of me think where. David Page has
>> suggested that it might have been one H. Webster (from a search on
>> 'Google Books'
>> Question 10. At the beginning of 1895, 07 January, to be exact,
>> Carriington records: "Colonist verses." Well, there's no poem of
>> that name, but given the date, it was presumably one which was
>> collected in /The Seven Seas. /And of the poems which were published
>> therein, the one which most nearly seems to have fitted the working
>> title, and the sentiments expressed in the verse, is 'The Native
>> Born'. Pinney - whom I didn't look up until after I'd written the
>> above, honest! - is of the same opinion. He goes on to say that the
>> poem was triggered by discussions at home about the naval defence of
>> the colonies - which effectively meant the colonies in Australia, then
>> still independent. Clearly the poem is meant to refer to a land in the
>> Southern hemisphere ("and the cross swings low for the morn", and "/To
>> the Sons of the Golden South"/),
>> And at this time, the four eastern colonies of what was shortly to
>> become the Commonwealth of Australia, had rudimentary navies of their
>> own, which were (barely) capable of providing a modicum of protection
>> to the primary ports in those colonies. As a result the Admiralty
>> provided four small cruisers and two torpedo boat destroyers "for the
>> protection of trade in Australasian waters": they were built and
>> manned by Great Britain, but funded by the Colonies. The RN squadron
>> based at Sydney was at the Admiralty's disposal, and could be sent
>> wherever the Admiralty ordered, and its remit covered the whole of the
>> southern Pacific - but the others (which were all given Australian
>> (and one New Zealand) names) were not supposed to leave "Australasian
>> waters". (This last paragraph is only indirectly related to the
>> question, but shows how /au fait / RK was with the questions of the hour.)
>> Does anyone have any alternative thoughts, please?
>> /Alastair/
>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>> signature database 9233 (20131230) __________
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>> http://www.eset.com
|