This is my official sworn affidavit relative to my discovery of the Hunley. This entire document, including all attachments, is, to the best of my knowledge, true and accurate. None of the people making statements or writing letters on my behalf have been promised any sort of return favor of any kind, nor did they already owe me a favor. In fact, many of the statements and letters are from people that I had not been in contact with for a period of years. Some of the attached letters were addressed to Senator McConnell but were first mailed to me so that I could include them with this report. I am not aware of any letter that I received for this purpose that I have not included. I mention that so the commission will know that I have not thrown out letters which question my discovery or do not otherwise fully support my position. A few additional letters, such as a letter from Dale Smith (a successful inventor and remote search expert) were sent directly to Senator McConnell and I did not receive copies of those, but I hope they will be considered at the same time as this affidavit.

First, I would like to take this opportunity to assure all members of the Hunley Commission that I am not attempting in any way to rescind my 1995 gift to the State of my rights to the Hunley (Note: see agreement signed September 14, 1995, between Spence and S.C. Attorney General Charles M. Condon), nor am I opposed in any way to others, such as NUMA and SCIAA, receiving credit for their own very valuable and important work as long as their contributions are properly presented. I am simply trying to see that I get the credit I deserve as the original discoverer of the wreck of the Civil War submarine H.L. Hunley.

It is my sincere belief that what the NUMA dive team effectively did on May 3, 1995, was to verify that the Hunley was indeed where I had reported it in the sworn papers I filed with the U.S. District Court at Charleston in 1980. (Note: It is my understanding that the Commission already has copies of this filing, Civil Admiralty Case #80-1303-8 filed on July 8, 1980.)

NUMA's work was extremely important and everyone connected with it certainly deserves an immense amount of public recognition and credit for it. However, the fact remains that I made the initial discovery in 1970 (and again via a magnetometer in 1971 and 1979) and, rather than digging it up or otherwise trying to salvage it without the proper legal authorization and permits, I correctly reported the Hunley's location to both the State and to the federal government. For that, and the fact that I later donated my ownership rights to the Hunley to the State, I feel I deserve official public recognition and credit as the original discoverer and I also deserve an official public expression of thanks from the State of South Carolina and/or the Hunley Commission for my donation. (Please see letter of September 20, 1995, from S.C. Attorney General Charles M. Condon to Spence expressing his "sincere appreciation and profound gratitude for your generous and historic donation to the State of your rights to the submarine H.L. Hunley.").

If the Commission also wants to extend credit and thanks to other individuals and organizations by name, I not only have no problem with it, I highly recommend it.

I respectfully suggest that Ralph Wilbanks be credited as the dive team leader and Clive Cussler be credited as the primary financial supporter of the NUMA team that verified the Hunley's location.

At the same time, it is appropriate and I feel imperative to mention that the NUMA effort was actually part of a joint NUMA/SCIAA project which was initiated, organized, and directed by former SCIAA underwater archeologist Mark Newell, who's private research on the Hunley had long been aided by the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the Georgia Archaeological Institute at the Augusta Richmond County Museum.

The National Park Service, the U.S. Navy, and SCIAA also deserve recognition and credit for their subsequent and continuing efforts relating to the Hunley.

I do not remember the exact date of my discovery, but after reviewing my records I am sure it could have been no earlier than September 18, 1970, which was the date I wrote a letter to the Charleston Evening Post denying that my company, Artifacts Inc., had already found and identified the Hunley, and no later than November 25, 1970, which is the date I first notified the late Dr. Robert L. Stephenson of my discovery.

A copy of my letter to Dr. Stephenson is attached. It states: "The other day I was out on the Miss Inah, a blackfish boat, and we hung several fish traps on an obstruction on the bottom. We were pretty far off shore in about thirty feet of water. We had some diving gear on the boat so I went overboard to free the traps. Three of the traps were hung up on some wreckage and one was hung up about a hundred feet away on what I could almost swear was the Hunley. It was about 18 feet long and 3 1/2 feet in diameter. It appeared to be intact. I was only on it for a matter of seconds because the guys on the boat pulled the trap free and I was afraid to push my luck around an unexplored area. What I saw could have been a boiler of some kind or possibly a smokestack, and it was nowhere near the size of the model on display in Charleston. We tossed a buoy over as soon as we could make one up. But we had already drifted at least a hundred yards at that time. The weather has prevented us from returning to the spot since that time. We have the general bearings · · · The site, what ever it is, is definitely outside of the 3 mile State jurisdiction. But if we do locate it we will definitely keep you informed."

My letter to Dr. Stephenson needs to be viewed in the following light. First, it was written after I had already discussed my discovery and the very serious problems (described elsewhere in this affidavit) that I was having with Dr. Stephenson with my friend and colleague Dr. Roland Young who was active in archeological diving and had a far better relationship with Dr. Stephenson. I had expressed to Dr. Young three things. The first being that I sincerely believed I had found the Hunley. Second that I didn't want any publicity until I had a degreed archeologist verify that I was correct. And third that I was afraid Dr. Stephenson, even though the wreck lay 3 1/2 miles offshore, would try to deny me permission to salvage the wreck and would take all of the credit for the discovery. Dr. Young advised me to play it safe. He said to report my find to SCIAA, but to withhold the exact position and express any doubts I had about the find in terms that would make it less likely for Dr. Stephenson to run out and have a press conference announcing "SCIAA's" discovery. I thought it was good advice and I agreed to play everything down until I had time to do some further work. My letter was an effort to follow his advice. I was trying to meet the technical requirements of making an official notification of my discovery to the authorities, but I was also discouraging premature publicity and possible claim jumping by Dr. Stephenson in the name of SCIAA.

As to exactly what I saw, I can't remember. However, I know that for years I told people that when I found it, it was almost completely buried, appeared intact and solid, topside up with a list to its starboard side, and visually smaller than the Charleston Museum's model. But, even though I remember telling people all of that, my mind's eye can no longer picture anything but my first approach to it (i.e. the fish trap caught on a "ledge") before I began seeing and comprehending the details. I do know (but I don't remember why I know) that the portion I saw was immediately aft of the forward hatch. Historian Noel P. Mellen claims that I told him about a broken port hole in the forward turret years before NUMA's press conference, but I don't remember it at all. I understand that the SCIAA and National Park Service archeologists have confirmed that the Hunley is indeed smaller than the museum's model.

In any case, I saw only a very small portion of it, and that was in very poor visibility. Both ends were buried so the length was my guess at its shortest possible length, not its greatest, and I am sure that part of my guess was based on the illustrations I had seen of the Hunley. It would have been impossible for me not to have taken those illustrations into account as I tried to understand and rationalize what I had seen on the bottom. The diameter I was speaking of was a guess at it's width not its depth, and was likewise based only on what was showing.

Even though, in the previous ten years, I had spent thousands of hours diving and had seen numerous smokestacks and boilers and didn't think it looked like one, I wasn't exactly 100% positive that it wasn't one. I mentioned that possibility to Dr. Stephenson, to a small degree as a red herring, but more so I wouldn't look foolish if that was what it turned out to be. A number of years earlier, Sir Robert F. Marx, who was then the world's most famous shipwreck explorer, had misidentified another ship's boiler as the gun turret of the U.S.S. Monitor, and I didn't want to make the same kind of mistake.

In my heart I was 100% sure that I had found the Hunley, but my scientific mind was only 99% sure. Logic told me there was a chance that it was something else and, as long as even a 1% chance existed, I felt I had to mention it. I had to be cautious. If I was to err, I wanted to do it on the safe side.

I never did find out what the other wreckage was. If it didn't bury, I suspect it was later snagged and drug off by a trawler. I don't know if it was old or new as I never actually saw it. There is a chance that it was part of the Housatonic or it may have even been the snag that I later dove on in 1979 with the aid of Captain John Parker and Captain Walter O'Neal, but I doubt it, as when those the Housatonic and the snag were plotted they seem too far away, even allowing for plotting errors. But then, I may be over estimating my mapping abilities. Maybe they weren't that far after all. (The aforementioned snag is discussed in more detail elsewhere in this affidavit.)

I also knew that regardless of what SCIAA did or did not do, the federal government would try to claim ownership of the Hunley as a prize of war so, even though I didn't agree with that premise, I knew that I had to get the federal government's cooperation. I could never afford a fight all the way to the supreme court over something I would just donate to the public anyway.

My first step was to get back out to the site. Unfortunately, when I got back to the site my buoy was gone and even by carefully searching the bottom I found no trace of the Hunley.

However, in 1971, I was able borrow a magnetometer and, with the aid of David McGehee and the late Mike Douglas, I was able to successfully relocate the wreck, or at least I assumed it was the same object. I will discuss more of that work further along in this document.

In 1972 or `73, I spoke with National Park Service Underwater Archeologist George Fischer and told him in detail about my initial discovery and subsequent work. He advised me of the legal issues and consequences I was facing and told me how I should go about securing permission to salvage the wreck.

Despite writing over eighty letters to various government officials and public figures (ranging from the president of the United States to the governor of Alabama) advising them that I believed I had found the Hunley and seeking their help in getting permission to salvage the wreck, I continued to keep a tight lid on publicity. I was definitely not trying to use the Hunley to become famous, and I am not now. Although I want credit for my discovery, I am not fighting for credit just for the fame, I am fighting for it because I earned it. I have made quite a few major discoveries and my other work and discoveries have already been written up in major articles in Life, People, Skin Diver, Treasure, Diving World, etc. In fact, I have no doubt that my work has been written up in over a thousand different newspapers and other periodicals around the world and I have also been on dozens of radio and television shows, including an interview with Jane Pawley on NBC's Today Show. So I don't really need the credit for the fame, to a certain degree I feel I already have that.

My first public announcement was made on June 13, 1975, when the Orangeburg Times & Democrat broke the story. The article (copy attached, first part, second part) was by John Faust and lead with "After four years of attempts to gain permission from the federal government to undertake search and salvage operations near Charleston, Lee Spence, an underwater archeologist, has decided to make public his claim to having discovered what he thinks are the long-lost remains of the Confederate submarine H.L. Hunley. · · · The object Spence located lies outside the three-mile jurisdiction of the state of South Carolina, but within federally-controlled waters. An added problem to any search and recovery of the object lying in 27 feet of water is that present law gives ownership of the object, if it proves to be the Hunley, to the U.S. government. Asked why he chose to disclose the information concerning the object he thinks is the Hunley and giving the precise location of the sunken object, Spence replied that he felt some positive action should be taken now by the federal government to authorize total exploration of what he found and verification of what the object is." The article went on to say "Spence said he has found and examined many ships' boilers and ships' smoke stacks during his years of diving and the object he found in 1970 was positively not a boiler or a stack. Upon surfacing and boarding the fishing boat Spence said he asked the owner of the vessel to point out the precise location on a chart. `The place he showed me,' recalled Spence, `was the place where the Housatonic was sunk in 1864. This I knew without a doubt because I, like other archeologists and divers in the Charleston area, had researched and sought the Hunley before without success. Since that time Spence has occupied many hours seeking permission to dive on the site to verify his beliefs. According to the Charleston resident, he spent the first year after his discovery researching the history of the Hunley in detail. The second year in determining the ownership of the submersible under present law; the third year trying to find which federal agency had jurisdiction over the wreck; the fourth year corresponding with several agencies of the federal government seeking clearances that the U.S. General Services Administration had advised Spence had a say so in the matter. `At this point,' said Spence, `I still don't have a contract from the GSA to salvage, or even explore. Lacking official clearance, I haven't made any dives on the site since I first found it." That last part was actually a misquote. What I had carefully said to the reporter was that I had not touched it since that first day, and that was absolutely true. I hadn't touched it because it was buried each time I returned to the site and dove. Elsewhere in the article the reporter wrote "The portion protruding above the sand showed a definite oval shape,' said Spence. `It appeared to be about 20 feet long with the ends sloping toward the sand." I don't know if that quote was correct or not, I kind of doubt it because I don't visualize it the way the reporter described it, but in any case it was probably based on his interpretation of what I did describe and it certainly reaffirms my earlier statement that both ends were buried.

My first application to the General Services Administration requesting permission to salvage the Hunley was dated January 16, 1974, (copy attached). It was typed on Sea Research Society stationary, addressed to Peter T. Gladding, Director, Sales Division, GSA, and begins with "In what we have been told are Federally controlled waters off of Charleston, South Carolina, we have located a sunken wreck which we believe to be the remains of the Civil War submarine, H.L. Hunley, (often simply referred to as the Hunley). It is our intention to recover artifacts from her, or to raise the entire vessel, for preservation and museum display, and to photograph the project so that financial return from such films might defray the expenses. We have no interest in retaining recovered artifacts for personal use, since they are part of our national heritage and should be preserved to create a United Stated Naval Museum in Charleston, and it seems appropriate that this would be a suitable place for display of `the first submarine to sink a ship." My letter went on to dispute federal ownership but stated "if the United States does claim ownership of the vessel we would like to enter into an exclusive contract relationship with GSA under section 3755 (40 USC310) with the understanding that the Antiquities Act applies, and that the Division of Archeology, Department of Interior will have an interest. Conversations with Interior have confirmed this and it is our feeling that Edwin C. Bearss, Historian, National Park Service, Ron A. Gibbs, Registrar, Division of Museums, National Park Service, and George R. Fischer, Underwater Archeologist, National Park Service, could all serve as suitable representatives of the Department and we would like to have them as part of our effort." I then listed some of the U.S. statutes which seemed to apply. Copies of this letter, like many of my subsequent letters, were sent to the mayor of Charleston, Senator E.F. Hollings, Senator Strom Thurmond, Bearss, Gibbs, Fisher, Alan B. Albright who was the state Marine Archeologist with SCIAA, and Admiral Herman J. Kossler who was director of the Patriots Point Development Authority. Albright failed to respond, but I did get letters of support from the mayor and from Senators Thurmond and Hollings (copies attached). I was, of course also in contact via the mail and or the phone with Messrs. Bearss, Gibbs, and Fisher.

Gladding responded in late March, 1974, with an undated letter (copy attached) stating "before we can proceed further on this matter, it will be necessary for you to furnish us with the following minimum information: estimated duration of the search and recovery operation; the names and addresses of all individuals who would be a party to the contract; the general location of the vessel and a brief plan of action as contemplated for the search and recovery operation." Gladding also requested "an advance payment of $250, payable to the order of the General Services Administration, is required to cover administrative expenses involved in processing the contract." His letter also stated that we "should also clear with the local office of the District Corps of Engineers to assure that there would be no objection to salvage operations in the local area." It ended with the words "we will be pleased to develop a contract for you upon receipt of the requested information."

I responded to Gladding's letter on March 28, 1974, (copy of my letter attached). With the letter I enclosed the requested check for $250 and a copy of a Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart on which "the area requested for the exclusive contract" was shaded with a yellow marker. I stated "This area was selected due to extensive historical research in conjunction with on the site observation of wreckage which has been tentatively identified as that of the submarine. This area also contains portions of the wreckage of the U.S.S. Housatonic which was sunk by the submarine. · · · The entire contract area will be surveyed with a magnetometer and with side scan sonar. This will be done to determine the extent of the spread of the wreckage from the two vessels. Magnetic anomalies will be examined, drawn, and photographed by divers. Buried anomalies will first be graphed through use of sophisticated sub-bottom profiling equipment and then excavated under the direction of a marine archeologist. Once the submarine has been positively identified, a study will be made of the most feasible manner in which to raise the wreckage without further damage to it. After the study has been completed and approved by the representatives of the GSA (We have requested that the National Park Service provide three of their people - Bearss, Fischer, and Gibbs - as the government's official representatives.) and after satisfactory arrangements have been made for the storage and preservation of the recovered artifacts, actual recovery will begin. All archeological material will be turned over to the proper U.S. governmental agency, with the hope and expressed desire that said agency will in turn donate the material to the proposed U.S. Naval Museum which is presently being planned for Charleston, South Carolina."

On April 3, 1974, I received a kind letter (copy attached) from South Carolina Governor John C. West which stated "I appreciated so much your letter on the Sea Research Society's efforts to secure salvage rights to the Hunley. Your plan to raise and donate this renowned Civil War submarine to the proposed National Naval Museum at Charleston is most commendable. You have my very best wishes in your endeavors."

On April 30, 1974, GSA's Peter T. Gladding sent me another letter (copy attached), this one acknowledging "receipt of your check for $250" and reminded me that they required "a copy of the clearance from the District Corps of Engineers for your operations in Savannah harbor." How he got Savannah is beyond me, I guess Charleston and Savannah are both Southern cities that he associated with the Civil War and the sea.

When I made my official request to the District Corps of Engineers, I included a map (copy of my letter and map of May 6, 1974, attached) on which I had plotted a 500 yard radius circle inside of the larger area I had marked on the chart sent to GSA on March 28, 1974. This was the exact same 500 yard radius area that I later used in my federal court filing against the Hunley. I sent copies of this location map to numerous government officials. As discussed below this is an extremely precise area.

Although I filed my location as a 500 yard radius around a set point, that method of giving the location met and or rather more than meets the requirements of the United States federal court system in filing claims to shipwrecks. In fact, the federal judge thought the area given in my claim was so precise that he had the records temporarily sealed to prevent looting of the site.

Attorney George Sink who described himself as "one of the attorneys involved in preparing Dr. E. Lee Spence's in rem action against the Housatonic and the Hunley in Federal District Court" in his October 29, 1996, letter to Senator McConnell, stated "I feel Judge Blatt felt Dr. Spence was on something when he temporarily sealed the court records to prevent possible looting." Earlier in the same letter Sink had written "When Dr. Spence approached me about representation, I felt he was being truthful with me about the situation he presented, and I believe Dr. Spence's account of his accidental discovery of the Hunley and his subsequent work. I believed that Dr. Spence's charts and notes were sufficient to establish that he had actually found both wrecks. When the NUMA sponsored dive team later `discovered' the Hunley, I felt they ought to have been thanked and acknowledged as having been the first to verify Dr. Spence's discovery but certainly not credited with the actual discovery as I thought that had been established earlier. Dr. Spence had been quite specific in his locating coordinates when we filed. He was advised to throw a larger net when describing the Hunley's location, but he insisted on a more precise or smaller, general location because of his confidence in his discovery."

As to the need to keep it secret please see the March 26, 1975, letter (copy attached) from Archeologist Sir Sidney Wignall. In it he states: "With reference to the Hunley. I would strongly advise you not to be seen visiting the site. It is possible that others might attempt to pre-empt you when they see where you are diving." In fact, Alan Mustard, Senior Vice President of SCE&G in a letter to Senator Fritz Hollings dated July 1, 1975, (copy attached) mentions fears and writes "his dread is that he would make the positive identification and then some governmental group or even the Smithsonian would take the ball away from him."

In case the Commission is not aware of it, the federal courts have previously ruled (in the Central America case) that electronic discovery of a shipwreck (aka "telepresence") is sufficient for a claim of discovery. This is important because, regardless of whether one believes that the partially exposed object I observed in 1970 was actually the Hunley, there is certainly no question that by the time of my 1980 court filing against the Hunley, I had already completed two entirely separate magnetometer surveys covering the entire 500 yard radius area. Furthermore, I had clearly marked my claim area on a chart and filed it with a wide variety of government agencies (GSA, NPS, SCIAA, US Navy, US Army, etc.) at least five years before my 1980 court filing, and both the Navy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had given me clearance to proceed with my work. (Note: Copies of those clearances are attached. See May 10, 1974, letter from Robert C. Nelson, District Engineer, Charleston District, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, and May 22, 1974, letter from Captain W.C. Larry, Headquarters, Commander Eastern Sea Frontier, United States Navy.)

I had advised the Army Corps of Engineers that my work would require the removal of less than 200 cubic yards of sand. I noted in the same letter that the excavation would "leave no permanent change in water depth, as the excavation would fill itself in within days after completion of the work. (Please see the attached copy of my letter of May 6, 1974, and the attached map). so it is clear that I was not going on a large scale dredging operation, and it is clear that I felt this area had high natural sand movement. The only reason I didn't salvage the Hunley was that I never could get the necessary permit from the General Services Administration's Property Disposal Office, and without it I would have been breaking the law.

Because of the limited size of my claim area (i.e. approximately 1/5 of a square nautical mile) an object the size of the Hunley can be located in less than one day of searching with a magnetometer. In fact, according to NUMA's "Final Report," they searched 796 line miles in just 30 survey days, or 26.53 miles per day. Using NUMA's stated spacing of 100 feet between survey lines, and searching a quarter of a mile square instead of just my claim area, one would have to conduct 15 miles of linear search. Using their stated search speed of four knots, it would have taken NUMA (or anyone else) less than four hours to thoroughly search my entire area and find the Hunley.

I have obtained (and attached to this document) several letters discussing the short time it would take to search this area. (Note: Many of these letters were addressed to Senator McConnell in response to my inquiries, but were sent to me so I could include them as part of this package.)

Several of the attached letters deal with the fact that shipwreck claims are typically made for an area versus a single point. Attached maps A & B, graphically illustrate the wide variation in the government's own plots of the Housatonic's position and should help explain why an area is typically given for a shipwreck claim rather than a specific point. As shown by these maps, the United States government's five scientifically plotted positions for that wreck vary by as much as 700', and NUMA's two plotted positions for the Housatonic are actually over 2,500' apart. The three plotted positions for what I identified as the Hunley also vary by as much as 700', but I am not even trying to say that the Hunley is exactly at any one of my plots. I am actually just trying to say that my object, which has now been positively identified as the Hunley, is somewhere within my claimed 500 yard radius area. But, that is still extremely precise. As explained above, to search the entire circle and relocate the Hunley should take less than four hours, with my bearings the required time should be far less. (Note: I have also attached a copy of a handwritten page I had prepared in 1979 or early 1980 showing the "distances & directions of object from search point." "Object" was the designation I used for the Hunley when writing down my confidential information. Please remember that although the numbers sound very precise when they are written down and plotted, my work is no more accurate than that of the USC&GS, NUMA, or NOAA and the true position may vary widely, but it would still fall within my claim area. The search point I have marked "O'Neal" is the one that I code named "it." (Subsequent note, not part of original affidavit: This was an obvious error, as the "it" on Spence's annotated 1979 chart and and the search point shown as "O'Neal" in Spence's notes, do not match up. The search point "O'Neal" is shown on Spence's annotated 1979 chart as "W.O." and scales approximately 450' away from the Hunley. Like "O'Neal", "W.O." is simply a logical abbreviation for Captain Walter O'Neal, who had snagged this wreckage and helped Spence to relocate it, pinpoint, and dive on it. After a series of dives, Spence tentatively identified the wreckage at point "W.O." as the old Housatonic wreck buoy.)  I have also attached Xerox copies of the pertinent area from the following charts on which I had marked some of my work: June 3, 1968, edition of USC&GS chart 491; June 7, 1976, edition of NOAA chart 11523; and two different November 24, 1979, edition of NOAA chart 11523. Version One is already linked above. Version Two.)

John T. Lawrence, CEO, of Seahawk Deep Ocean Technology "a public Corporation with 8,000 shareholders, which specializes in the search and recovery of shipwrecks" in the attached letter he wrote to Senator McConnell on October 14, 1996, states in his section #2: "A circle of 500 yards radius would be considered small. For the last two claims the Company has made (one off St. Augustine, Florida, and the other off Georgia), the area has been a circle with a radius of 5,000 yards." He follows this up in his section #4 saying "Under the conditions described, to search for such a target we would use a proton magnetometer towed from a 20 ft. boat, and subject to waiting on weather, we estimate that the target should be located within six hours of arriving at the site."

Attorney Richard Robel, who specializes in admiralty law cases and won the famous Central America case before the United States Supreme Court, wrote Senator McConnell a letter on September 26, 1996, (copy attached) and stated: "The location of the deposit (i.e. shipwreck) need not necessarily be at the center of the area designated, and because of confidentiality considerations, frequently will not be there." Robel cites several shipwreck claims giving the sizes of the areas involved. For the Central America the area was a "4 x 5 mile box" for a total of twenty square miles. For treasure salvor Mel Fisher's Atocha "the salvor had initially defined the wreck's location in terms of a circle having a radius of 2500 yards. · · · The district court later broadened this description and created an injuncted area that encompassed approximately 13.3 square miles." Robel goes on to write: "Accordingly, the identification of a location for the Hunley within a radius of 500 yards or less in publicly filed legal papers could be considered for most purposes to be reasonable in light of the special historical and scientific circumstances surrounding the Hunley. The area encompassed by such description is relatively small; and given the physical nature of the Hunley as a substantial ferrous metal target · · · the confirmatory search required entails a relatively simple process. The relatively primitive technology required for refuting (or verifying) such a claim of discovery has existed for decades, and a program to refute or verify such a claim of discovery could certainly have been carried out well before 1996."

David Foster, President of American Underwater Contractors, states in his letter of January 3, 1997 (copy attached) to Senator McConnell, that "Dr. Spence's claim of a five-hundred yard radius would be a very easy target for a qualified remote sensing crew. Our crew consists of three people on a 36-foot, enclosed cabin survey vessel with a D-GPS positioning system and an EG&G 866 marine towed magnetometer. This crew could locate a target the size of the Hunley in only a few hours if given an area this small to search."

I say that it is absolutely unreasonable to believe that not only was my selection of my claim area pure luck, but that I was so unlucky that, even when I did my magnetometer surveys (one in 1971 and a second in 1979), that I failed to locate the buried object that NUMA later uncovered and verified to be the Hunley. It was in apparent recognition of this that the Deputy State Archeologist, Chris Amer, wrote me a letter on February 2, 1996, stating "Dr. Leader and I will agree that you saw, and located the submarine prior to the NUMA," if it was confirmed that the Hunley indeed lay within the area that I had previously filed with the Federal District Court. A copy of Amer's letter is attached.

I strongly disagree with Clive Cussler's flip comment to the press that "anyone can draw a circle in the ocean." If it was that easy, why didn't Cussler draw it at the right spot in 1980 when NUMA first started looking.

The verification of my location was extremely good news to me because, although I was over 99% sure of my discovery, I am an archeologist, and, like any competent scientist, I wanted a thorough independent verification by other trained archeologists. Without such verification there would have always remained a small question lurking even in my own mind. On the other hand, had the Hunley been found outside of my small area I would have been stunned, but I would have graciously accepted the facts and walked away. However, as far as I am concerned, thanks to NUMA, SCIAA, and the National Park Service, there is no longer any question whatsoever that what I found in 1970 (by accident) and again (purposefully with a magnetometer) in 1971 and 1979, was indeed the Hunley. I only wish SCIAA or NPS had done it many years earlier.

Things that made me, as an archeologist, initially question my own discovery included the fact that, according to the historical records, what I had found was too close to the Housatonic and that it was too small. My questioning was proper. It was the normal workings of a scientific mind using trained logic.

My find lay within the 500 yard radius around the Housatonic that the United States Navy had searched unsuccessfully for the Hunley in November of 1864, less than a year after the sinking. If it was within that area, one would have thought they would have found it. I truly did not understand how the Navy could have missed it. I still don't, as it is extremely doubtful that the Hunley was buried at the time of their search. To find the Hunley in the area the Navy had searched unsuccessfully seemed to defy logic, and I was absolutely right to question my own findings. However, now that it has been shown to be within that area, it should also be noted that it would defy logic for me to insist it was within that area unless I was personally convinced that I had found there. It would also defy logic for me to have gone before the Commission as I did on September 14, 1995, while Cussler was still publicly claiming it was over a mile from my area and publicly swear, as I did, that I had found it within my previously circle, sign over my rights to it, and then offer to take the State to it. On a later date I even offered to arrange for a magnetometer, divers, boats, etc. and to buoy the Hunley at no cost to the State. I am not a nut, I am a recognized expert on shipwrecks, the author of numerous books on shipwrecks, and I am a member of Mensa, which bills itself as the "High I.Q. Society."

Although I had diving gear on when I made my first dive to the Hunley, I had no wetsuit. I was actually diving in cold water in just my underwear (the discovery had been a chance find when a fish trap hung up on the bottom), so I did not stay on the wreck long, which is one reason I don't remember too many details. The visibility was quite limited by the setting sun and the particulate matter in the water, and very little of the wreck was exposed. Other than what I mentioned earlier, I hesitate to describe exactly what I saw, or what made me believe it was the Hunley, because it has been over 25 years and I can no longer truly separate what I actually saw and what I subsequently researched. However, I saw enough that one part of me was absolutely convinced that I had found the Hunley. Since I was already quite familiar with pictures of her and I had already been diving on shipwrecks for ten years and I had the knowledge and the experience to make an accurate judgment.

One thing I do remember very clearly is racing to the surface screaming that I had found the Hunley. (Note: Troy Clanton's attached notarized statement of December 18, 1996, attests to both my dive and to my stated belief that I had found the Hunley. Clanton is a lay minister who attended Southeastern Bible College and is currently studying criminology at Aubern University. Until I asked him for an affidavit, he and I hadn't talked in years, so he didn't make it because we were close friends. I don't think I could have a better witness than Clanton. He was a completely unbiased eye-witness to my discovery, and he is unquestionably sincere and honest.) I have also attached the boat captain's sworn statement, dated January 31, 1997, in which he states "I, Joseph Porcelli, hereby affirm that in the afternoon hours of mid October, 1970, Lee Spence who was on my trawler Miss Inah dove and identified a snag on one of my blackfish traps to be the sub Hunley." As to Captain Porcelli's background and credentials, he attended the Citadel and served as a captain in the U.S. Army Special Forces. He is also the author of the novel The Photograph. Besides being a boat captain and thus knowledgeable about bearings and ranges, he has worked extensively as a professional diver and has dived on scores of wrecks.

Don M. Clanton, who has been an active member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans for the past seventeen years and has served as adjutant and commander of Secession Camp No. 4, and commander of the Low Country Brigade division for two years wrote an extremely nice letter to Senator McConnell on December 30, 1996, (copy attached) in which he stated: I am writing to you to express my firm conviction that underwater archeologist Dr. E. Lee Spence should be given official recognition as the original discoverer of the CSS Hunley. After studying the facts of Dr. Spence's efforts to convince numerous government agencies to verify his discovery and issue the proper permits to an operation chartered by the State of South Carolina for educational and research purposes, I am convinced his were the actions of a man who was sure of his claim of actually seeing the Hunley. I have also had conversations with my nephew, J. Troy Clanton III, who was on board the fishing vessel, "Miss Inah" on the day in November, 1970 when Dr. Spence made the discovery. Troy has assured me that the discovery as described by Dr. Spence is correct. · · · I ask the Hunley Commission to credit Dr. E. Lee Spence with the original discovery of the Hunley. It would be an injustice to do otherwise."

Although my friends Jim Batey, Ron Reneau, and Michael Douglas went out to my site the day after my original discovery, Batey, who was the only one who dived, wasn't an archeologist. Even though I had great respect for him, I knew that I needed a degreed archeologist to verify my discovery. Besides, for years I wasn't even sure what he had seen. Batey teased me unmercifully about it, alternating between saying my discovery was a worthless pile of scrap iron and at other times saying it was unquestionably the Hunley. (Note: Unfortunately, until three days ago Batey was in Roper Hospital trying to recover from brain seizures, liver and kidney failure. Batey had already drafted a statement that he was going to sign swearing that he had actually dived on the Hunley, but he fell ill and almost died before he could get with a notary. I don't know when Batey will be well enough to get before a notary to sign the statement, but in the mean time I am attaching a copy of his statement that he signed before two witnesses, and I will get a notarized copy to the Commission as soon as Batey is well enough to appear before a notary.)

About a year after my 1970 discovery, Mike Douglas, David McGehee and I used a magnetometer to relocate the Hunley, which had been covered by the shifting sands. Douglas died about six years ago, but McGehee, who is now a professional engineer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has written me a letter verifying that during our magnetometer search "in late 1971 or early 1972 we located several large iron objects within a several mile radius of the ends of the Charleston Harbor Jetties, including a site reasonably close to where Lee stated he saw the famous Confederate submarine. This was, in all likelihood, the first commercial magnetometer survey of the waters offshore of Charleston." A copy of McGehee's letter (addressed "To Whom It May Concern" and dated January 7, 1997) has been attached to this affidavit.

I have also attached a sworn affidavit by John Parker {dated January 23, 1997 (page one, page two)}, who helped me do a magnetometer survey of my entire claim area in 1979 in preparation for my 1980 court filing. Parker attests to our locating a magnetic anomaly for a buried object, which due to the size of the anomaly, and the fact that it was at the approximate intersection of the bearings I had previously reported, we both believed that it was the Hunley. Parker describes his using a handheld compass to take "bearings to the two nearest Coast Guard channel buoys (numbers 4 and 8) and to the Sullivan's Island lighthouse and several other visible landmarks (including the Isle of Palms water tank." He also mentions some of the dangers we faced in this work and describes the time he saved my life. Parker writes "To give you an idea of the dangers we faced while doing this work, I would like to point out that we were well past the jetties so the seas were far rougher than one would encounter in the harbor and my boat was simply an open boat with relatively little freeboard and a single outboard engine. On some days it was so rough that white caps were actually breaking over the bow and we couldn't turn and put the stern to the waves because the stern was cut low for the outboard. At times our prop would come completely out of the water and spin madly with the reduced resistance. On our way back from one trip a plug came loose flooding the boat's double hull. Water was spouting out of the deck through bolt holes. We were afraid we wouldn't get back to shore before we sank. We barely made it back to shore. On another trip to the site, Lee recovered a Civil War era bottle which he thought most likely came from the wreck of the Housatonic. On that trip the weather was so bad that Lee got separated from the boat and was carried away by the currents. By the time I spotted him, pulled up the anchor, got the prop cleared of a fouled buoy line, and restarted the engine, he was almost out of sight. Had I not found him, Lee probably would not have made it to shore. In fact, the same day I rescued Lee, it was so rough that two boats, about the size of mine, overturned in the harbor and I heard that one man was drowned." At one point in his affidavit Parker states: "More importantly, Lee still stood by his belief that the object he had seen in 1970 and the anomaly he and I had located in 1979 were one and the same. I can not vouch for the location of Lee's 1970 object but we did find the buried magnetic anomaly with ranges Lee had obtained or calculated before we did the magnetometer survey. The buried magnetic anomaly, which we both believed to be the Hunley was definitely located within the 500 yard radius area that Lee described in sworn documents and filed with the Federal District Court in 1980. I know this because Lee and I met with attorney George Sink to discuss our work in preparation of those papers."

Jack Fisher who's company built the magnetometer Parker and I used to relocate the Hunley has been a friend for almost thirty years and wrote me an undated letter (copy attached) in which he wrote: "It is with considerable amusement that I have read the recent accounts of Clive Cussler's discovery of the Hunley. I remember our conversations back in the early 70's. You located the Hunley, but you didn't know what to do with it. Maybe you should have called Mr. Cussler and had him announce it for you. He is obviously better at PR than you are! · · · I'm sure your trying to set the record straight, but don't be disappointed if you don't succeed. Think about it, the political forces would much prefer giving Clive Cussler credit, it gives them much better coverage and notoriety (who the hell is Lee Spence?). Don't give up though, there is always the possibility you will encounter a bureaucrat who isn't blinded by Mr. Cussler's notoriety and wants to set the record straight."

I sincerely hope the Commission understands the extreme difficulty in preparing a case that should have been settled a quarter of a century ago. It has often been said, "justice delayed is justice denied." I hope that will not be the case with my discovery.

However, I would like to point out that had, as I requested numerous times, representatives of either the National Park Service or SCIAA gone to my site with me at any time prior to NUMA's uncovering the wrecked sub on May 3, 1995, there would be no need for the Commission to make this determination. There would be no need for me to defend my discovery, and there would be no need for those who failed to do their jobs for decades (i.e. archeologists with both NPS and SCIAA) to try to find evidence that might be presented or twisted in such a way that I will be denied credit, thus rendering mute their years of inaction.

Many of the people who could help document my case and/or explain the delays and what else went on are now deceased. Some that come to mind are Mike Freeman (dive store owner and National Geographic Society special project photographer and diver), Al Chandler (head of Special Projects, National Geographic), Ron Reneau (diver, business partner), Herman J. Kossler (Ret. Rear Admiral USN, and executive Director of the Patriot's Point Development Authority), Creed C. Burlingame (Ret. Rear Admiral USN), Mike Douglas (diver, archeological technician), Dr. Robert L. Stephenson (S.C. State Archeologist), William E. Geoghegan (Division of Transportation, Smithsonian), Ron Gibbs (Registrar, Division of Museums, National Park Service), Tom S. Dickey (Civil War historian and ordnance expert), Jim Ryals (electronics expert, business partner), Elias Bull (Charleston County Historian), Nancy Butler Cathcart (diver), Joseph P. Riley, Sr. (chairman, Maritime and Ports Activities Committee, Charleston County Bicentennial Committee), Whitney Tharin (scientist, diver, and business partner), Bill Kensey (historian, and competitor to the Hunley), Dr. Peter Throckmorton (marine archeologist, and historian), Dr. Harold Edgerton (scientist, inventor of sidescan sonar & strobe photography), Percival Petit (historian), Fred Hack (business partner). This list saddens me because it is so long, but I afraid it is actually an incomplete list. There are additional people that I can't find who may have also passed away.

With the exception of the late Dr. Stephenson (State Archeologist and director of SCIAA), who carried out a lengthy personal vendetta against me and did all he could to sabotage my efforts, I considered all of these people to be friends and/or respected colleagues, and all of them helped me in one way or another with the Hunley.

Dr. Stephenson was assisted in his unwarranted vendetta by SCIAA underwater archeologist Alan B. Albright. Both men seemed jealous of my numerous headline making discoveries and my youth (I wish I still had the youth). Furthermore, they absolutely hated me because I had publicly accused both of them of "gross dereliction of duty." (See my attached letter of August 2, 1975, to Ron Brinson, Office of the Governor of S.C., in which I forwarded a copy of a news story on the Hunley, and stated: "The story is pretty close to what really happened but it doesn't mention that rather than trying to raise the Hunley for profit (she would be worth several million dollars if sold as a tourist attraction to the highest bidder) I have asked that Sea Research Society be allowed to raise her and donate her to South Carolina. · · · I can not really expect support from the Institute of Archeology and Anthropology at the University of South Carolina as I have publicly accused both the State Archeologist and the State Underwater Archeologist of what · · · amounts to `gross dereliction of duty' and I have been involved in lawsuits against the State Archeologist. I would honestly like to cooperate with the Institute and work closely with them but I have been unable to convince them that we both have something to offer each other and to our State.") My accusations related to SCIAA's failure to make even one visit to the site of the Confederate cruiser Georgiana which had been wrecked while running the blockade during the Civil War. South Carolina's law protecting shipwrecks was actually passed as a result of my discovery of the Georgiana, and my company was issued the first salvage license ever granted under that law. We worked the site for years and actually recovered hundreds of thousands of individual artifacts from the wreck, but to this date, thirty years after my discovery and over twenty years after my first publicly criticizing their inaction, no one from SCIAA has ever bothered to do their job properly and go to the Georgiana site. Interestingly enough, SCIAA has managed to get the South Carolina State Museum to improperly credit their archeologists with the recovery of displayed artifacts from the Georgiana. The exhibit sign looks good, but its a lie, no SCIAA official has ever even been to the wreck, much less recovered any of the artifacts.

If you question whether either Stephenson or Albright were fair in their treatment and opposition to me or whether such a vendetta indeed existed, please see Dr. Roland Young's attached letter of January 10, 1997, to Senator Glenn F. McConnell in which he states "Be advised that Dr. E. Lee Spence reported to me in 1970 he had found the Hunley, drawing a map for my records and giving me a complete description of what he had found. I tried for several years to have Dr. Robert Stephenson investigate and validate this discovery. He absolutely ignored me and for a few years after that there was bad blood between us. I allowed time to pass and continued to work with the S.C. Institute of Archeology as if nothing had happened, but I must tell you, I was ashamed and embarrassed by Dr. Stephenson's position when it came to Lee Spence · · · I find that Spence was the victim of a lengthy personal vendetta by the late Dr. Stephenson." Dr. Young, who owns an insurance agency in Columbia, South Carolina, is the CEO of the South Carolina Underwater Archeological Research Council, and was vice-president of the Sea Research Society during the time the Society was attempting to secure permission to salvage the Hunley. Dr. Young has offered to appear before and give his statement as sworn testimony before the Commission.

I suggest you also see Dr. Mark Newell's attached letter (page one, page two) to me of January 23, 1997, in which he states that he was "specifically ordered by Mr. Albright not to contact you formally or informally, and not to prepare any documents or memorandums that might lend credibility to your claim that you had discovered the CSS H.L. Hunley. I was told that to do so would result in the termination of my post." Dr. Newell goes on to add that "Even after Mr. Albright's precipitous departure from SCIAA, his replacement persisted in this policy, even to the extent of attempting to destroy extensive file box holdings on your work in general and the Hunley in particular. I threatened to complain publicly about this intended action and instead the materials were consigned to a `dead file' room where they were not readily accessible. Had I been aware earlier of the penchant for the Institute management to turn personal vendettas into `State Approved Policy,' I would have worked harder than I did to circumvent SCIAA's policy to avoid any action on the Hunley - confirming your discovery of the Hunley might well have been the result." Newell also adds: "the pettiness of the management of (the) Institute prevented proper investigation of your discovery - not only when it occurred - but even years later when I was prepared to openly review your claim and visit the site with you." Dr. Newell was the SCIAA underwater archeologist who was actually head of the Hunley search expedition conducted jointly by NUMA and SCIAA. Dr. Newell has also offered to give sworn testimony in this matter.

In a letter dated July 15, 1980, (copy attached) which I had prepared at the suggestion of my attorney David P. Horan regarding my July 4, 1980 conversation with Clive Cussler, I wrote: "He did mention that Alan Albright (the State Underwater Archeologist) had told him that he wanted to screen all people who would be working with him on his Project and that Alan had specifically stated that he `did not want Lee Spence or Mel Fisher' involved in any way on the project. Cussler also joked and said that he had to hide under the bed to call me so that Alan wouldn't cause him problems because of his talking to me. He stated that Alan would try to cancel his search license if he heard that Cussler had called me."

In Wayne F. Child's sworn affidavit of December 9, 1996, he talks of the problems I had with Dr. Stephenson and my correct refusal to do anything without the proper permits. Speaking of Dr. Stephenson, Child states "Such an attitude, on the behalf of individual state archeologists is not unusual. There are many articles that have been written which document the ongoing battle between government archeologists and the professional salvors. The debate over whether to leave these wrecks intact on the ocean floor likewise continues. I believe that the professional archeological community actually sees their struggle as a war, because in fact it has been" (emphasis his). Child's statement is somewhat disjointed and contains some inconsequential errors, but it is definitely worth reading.

Mike Freeman and Al Chandler (head of Special Projects for National Geographic Society) carefully reviewed my research, charts, and field notes (never returned), believed I had discovered the Hunley, and encouraged the National Geographic Editors to sponsor an expedition to verify it. Had Mike Freeman not died, I would have definitely gotten pictures to verify my discovery. Even after National Geographic backed out, Mike and Petrone believed in me. Mike and I were on the phone making final plans for an unsanctioned expedition the day before he died. His widow, Inez P. Freeman, has already sent a letter, dated December 20, 1996, to Senator McConnell, a duplicate copy of her letter has been attached to this document. Her letter talks about the National Geographic Expedition being delayed by Chandler's death and then being canceled when National Geographic's researcher came to the incorrect conclusion that the Hunley could not have been in my area. She says the researcher thought the Hunley lay elsewhere, however I have recently reviewed a copy of his research and he had come to the incorrect conclusion that the Hunley had been destroyed or salvaged many years ago. Either way, it shows that my choice of the location went against the historical record. Her letter also verifies that my plans were thwarted in part by her husband's death. Like some of the others who are now dead, Mike Freeman was a very dear and very much loved friend and I not only miss him, I now need his testimony and moral support, and I can't get it.

Many others, who's testimony would have helped have long since retired from their jobs or moved away and I am unable to trace them. Some of those are probably deceased. Others, such as archeological diver and Civil War expert Carter Leary who had a stroke recently, are too ill, or they are too feeble and thus unable to help.

On December 13, 1996, National Park Service Historian Emeritus Edwin C. Bearss took the time to write me a handwritten letter on stationary of the 11th Mississippi Memorial Committee of which he is an honorary member. In his letter, he acknowledged "In 1973 I was the Chief Historian of the National Park Service and was contacted by you. You informed me that you had located the C.S.S. Hunley off the Coast of Sullivan's Island · · · Because of other duties I did not visit the site per your invitation, and suggested you contact Archeologist George Fischer of the National Park Service's Southeast Archeological Center, located on the campus of Florida State University. Archeologist Fischer was the service's specialist in underwater archeological sites in the Southeast Region." This admission is important because it clearly shows that I had invited him to the site and I certainly would not have been attempting to get such a distinguished person to come to the site had I not been genuinely convinced that I had indeed found the Hunley. (Note: Prior to his retirement Bearss had been involved as a historian on a number of NPS Projects and, as "Special Assistant to the Director for Military Parks, National Park Service, Department of the Interior," presented the Department's official position "Before the subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, concerning H.R. 1741, A Bill to Transfer the Title of the Confederate Submarine H.L. Hunley to the State of South Carolina and to Establish a Federal Oversight Committee for its Preservation.")

George Fischer, long retired and recently diagnosed with throat cancer, was an underwater archeologist with the National Park Service. He, along with NPS personnel Bearss and Gibbs, also served on the Board of Sea Research Society during the time that the Society, which I headed, was seeking permission to salvage the Hunley. Fischer was actively advising me on what I should and should not do relative to salvaging the Hunley. I still have letters and documents that clearly show this, but the years have taken their toll and he only vaguely remembers his critically important role. Fischer was also familiar with the problems I was having with SCIAA, and he was the one that convinced me not to dig up the Hunley. He emphatically told me that I would be arrested, fined, my equipment confiscated, and my career ruined, if I didn't follow proper procedures and get the required permits. He advised me of that procedure, and I faithfully followed his advice. His advice was technically correct, but I wish I had not followed it. I have sent him copies of the letters, including a couple he wrote, hoping they will spur his memory. I want him to tell the world that I did exactly what he, as a representative of the United States National Park Service, had advised me to do. I reported the discovery to the proper authorities, I gave a map correctly showing the Hunley's location, I sought the proper permits, and I did not disturb the site without those permits.

Fischer's attached letter of July 22, 1974, stated in part "What is happening? Have you received clearance from GSA and what are your plans now? I have become pretty interested in the whole matter and hope that you can manage to get on it for salvage. If you do, I certainly would like to get involved in a way I can help, as I think it probably presents a better possibility of recovery than about any other of which I know."

It should also be noted that as early as 1972, Fischer, Bearss, and the late Ron A. Gibbs (who was then Registrar, Division of Museums, for the National Park Service and had previously worked on the federal government's Dry Tortugas Shipwreck Project and other shipwreck projects) agreed to serve on Sea Research Society's Board of Advisors and in April of 1972 both Bearss and Gibbs voted in favor of my Doctor of Marine Histories degree (Fisher didn't vote either way), so I definitely had their respect. Sea Research Society was the eleemosynary organization under who's name I actually applied for permission to salvage the Hunley, so all three of these men were an integral part of my efforts to salvage the Hunley and advised me on different points at various phases of the project. Unfortunately, much of their advice was given in person or over the phone and I can not quote it verbatim. However, their acceptance on the Society's Board and their voting for my degree was all done in writing and I will be happy to furnish copies of those and other related Sea Research Society documents if the Commission wishes to see them. My Doctor of Marine Histories degree (M.H.D.) was officially awarded by Sea Research Society as part of its College of Marine Arts Program. Requirements for the degree were set at A minimum of nine years of involvement in marine work or marine related research, as well as some significant contribution to the furthering of marine archeology or other marine related art or history, or the satisfactory completion of all course work normally required for a Doctor of Philosophy, with at least one year of intensive research in one of the marine related arts or histories, over and beyond that done meeting the course requirements for a Ph. D. The creation and awarding of this degree was done by a written vote of Sea Research Society's Board of Directors and Board of Advisors. In addition to Gibbs and Bearss mentioned above, other distinguished persons who voted for my degree included: the late Frederick Dumas (French underwater archeologist famed for his work with Captain Jaques Yves Cousteau); Luis Marden (then Chief, Foreign Editorial Staff, National Geographic Magazine, and at that time National Geographic Society's resident shipwreck expert); Robert C. Wheeler (then Associate Director of the Minnesota Historical Society); Don Pablo Bush Romero (then president of the Club de Exploraciones Mexico, Mexican underwater archeological society); Sir Anders Franzen (discoverer of the wreck of the Swedish warship Vasa); Paul J. Tzimoulis (editor/publisher of Skin Diver magazine); and several others of similar note. At present the degree of Doctor of Marine Histories remains a non-traditional degree, but its validity and high caliber should be recognized in light of the above facts. To date all of the recipients (there have only been five recipients, including Spence, so it certainly wasn't a degree mill) have been persons with international reputations for their work in the field of underwater archeology and/or historical shipwreck research. One example of the others who received this degree was the late Peter Throckmorton. Throckmorton was best known for his 1960 discovery of what was then the oldest known shipwreck in the world (it was from the Bronze Age). An account of that discovery was carried in National Geographic Magazine. Throckmorton published numerous articles and books on shipwrecks and underwater archeology, and was a professor at Nova University in Florida when he died. Unfortunately, the College of Marine Arts was sabotaged to a large degree by Dr. Stephenson and is no longer in operation.

Salvage expert Randy Lathrop's attached letter of November 7, 1996, to Senator McConnell closes with the following statement: "I view Dr. Spence with the highest regards as someone who has dedicated his life and studies to maritime history and exploration." I believe Lathrop wrote that because he knows that I have always tried to do what was right when it came to shipwrecks. I don't exaggerate about them, I don't lie about them, and I certainly don't make public claims of discovery unless I feel I can back them up. But, part of me wishes I had broken the law, dug the wreck up, and removed all doubts about my discovery.

In effect, that is what I was planning to do with Mike Freeman before he died. Freeman had convinced me that Fischer was wrong, even without permits I would not have been arrested or ruined. In fact, it was just as wrong for me to let bureaucratic red tape, and petty jealousies, incompetence, and dereliction of duty on the part of certain government officials delay the saving of the Hunley. Every day, every month, every year of the decades she continued to remain underwater meant further deterioration, and the possibility that she would be lost forever. Although I would have faced some minor criticism for doing it without permits, the importance of the discovery, and the fact that I would have been doing it in the face of decades of inaction by the National Park Service and SCIAA would have protected me. I have attached Dr. Hugh Myrick's sworn statement that he, Mike Freeman, Dr. Steve Swavely, Pete Petrone, Mark Ragan, Stan Fulton, and I were planning this verification expedition. Pete Petrone was formerly with the Special Projects section of National Geographic, and Freeman had extensive connections, and diving and photo credentials, with National Geographic.

Claude E. (Pete) Petrone is now officially retired from the National Geographic Society Special Projects section, but he still does contract work with National Geographic. He was one of the people that strongly believed in my discovery and when I asked him to write a letter detailing our meetings and plans to do a National Geographic sponsored expedition, he immediately agreed. However, when I last spoke with him he said he wanted to pass his letter by National Geographic Magazine Editor Bill Graves. Petrone said that he was sure Graves would approve his letter but he didn't want to send it without that approval. He stated that he "didn't want to cut off his nose." Unfortunately, I am still waiting for his letter, and I am not as positive as he that Graves will ever let it be mailed. After all National Geographic backed out of what was an easy project because of faulty research on their researcher's part. Additionally, it took me several years to get my charts back and I never got back all of my field notes that I had let them review. Graves may prefer that Petrone remain silent. (Note: Petrone's letter arrived after this letter was written and I felt it was extremely supportive of my position. This note added by Dr. Spence 2/27/97)

Some people like Ralph Wilbanks, who headed NUMA's search team, have expressed a reluctance to write a letter on my behalf. As Wilbanks said when I asked him - "Lee, I want to help you, but you must remember how my bread is buttered." (Note: Clive Cussler has hired him for a series of projects.) Although Wilbanks remembered buying my book (Treasures of the Confederate Coast, published by Narwhal Press in January of 1995) which contains a map clearly showing my claim area, and he remembered discussing Mark Newell's reported discovery of the Hunley, he said he wasn't clear on what else we talked about. I do remember. I told him that the Hunley was quite close to the Housatonic and that it was smaller than the model at the Charleston museum. I was correct on both counts. I also expressed my belief that the NUMA team had probably found the Hunley, without realizing it, during their 1980 or `81 search. I may have been correct there too, as when I plotted out NUMA's 1980 position for the Housatonic it seems to sit very close to my plots for the Hunley. (Please see attached Maps A & B.) Wilbanks, is an extremely fine and decent man. I have known him most of my life and I respect him a great deal and consider him a friend, but I still haven't received the letter he promised me, not even one couched in terms to protect his bread and butter. I don't blame him, but I am disappointed.

The day of Clive Cussler's press conference announcing the "discovery" of the Hunley, NUMA search team member Wes Hall walked up to me and, in front of historian Pat Mellen, said "Lee, I want you to know that the whole team agrees that you found it first." I immediately went over to a reporter and suggested that she talk to Hall and ask who made the first discovery. Hall danced around the reporter's questions and never gave her something she could quote. He later told me that I had put him on the spot. There is no question I had, but I don't feel that it is ever unreasonable to ask someone to tell the truth. Mellen, who had witnessed the entire exchange mentioned it in his "letter to the editor" which was published in Vol. 3, #3 of wreck diver. A signed and witnessed copy of Mellen's published letter has been attached.

Gene H. Kizer Jr., Chairman of the Preston Brooks Society in his December 10, 1996, letter to Senator McConnell stated "It is my deep feeling that the Hunley was definitely discovered by Charlestonian Dr. E. Lee Spence. · · · Anyone who filed coordinates on the Hunley way out there in the wide blue ocean, to within 1/5th of a mile as Dr. Spence did around 25 years ago, before instruments were as accurate as today, HAD to be the first and true discoverer."

The reluctance (or rather refusal) of certain government officials (especially those with NPS and SCIAA) to meet with me, return my calls, or to provide me with copies of relative documents in their possession which would help substantiate my claim has contributed to the difficulty of proving my discovery. In particular, I am frustrated because SCIAA's current director has refused to even look at my files on the Hunley. I had wanted him to review them so he could offer an honest evaluation of my files to the Commission and thus assist the Commission in making their determination as to who should be credited with the discovery.

I don't even begin to know how to respond to (rumors of) reports that scientific tests show that the Hunley would have been buried in 1970 and that it would have been impossible for me (or anyone else) to have seen the wreck in 1970.

Other than pointing to the sworn statements of two other people who dove on it the same week I did, and the sworn statements of Joe Porcelli and Troy Clanton who were aboard the Miss Inah when I made my dive, I can't directly respond to or refute those reports (if they actually exist) because I don't know what tests were made.

No matter how scientific those tests might have been, I don't know if they actually show what is being touted. It is my understanding that the portion of the wreck that the NUMA divers uncovered was approximately the same area I observed, so any evidence in the form of sand layering, which might have supported my claim, would have been destroyed or contaminated by NUMA's excavation. However, I suspect that the test results are from another undisturbed area, which had not been exposed in 1970 and is not applicable, or they simply show that no measurable growth had been added to the Hunley's surface since a date well prior to my 1970 discovery. The lack of recent growth doesn't necessarily mean that the Hunley wasn't uncovered after that date, it simply means that no measurable growth was added after a certain time.

I was well aware of the lack of "recent" growth on the Hunley when I found it, but I don't remember how much old encrustation of sand shell, etc. there might have been. I have seen the photos so I could accurately describe them, but what I am trying to do is describe what I remember. Unfortunately, a quarter of a century has passed and I can't remember. However, I do know that it has always been my belief that the Hunley had only been exposed for only a brief time before my discovery. I honestly don't remember if the sea-whip I have described in some articles was a literary device used strictly for illustrative purposes or if it was real. I think it was real but, even if it was, I can't say whether it was new growth or simply the old dead remains. If it existed at all, it was certainly the only identifiable piece of growth that I remember.

Regardless of what growth was on it, I know that the object I found was buried within a matter of weeks (possibly just days) after my discovery. I know this because it was completely buried by the time I went back out to the site. I never saw it uncovered again, despite a number of trips back out to the site over a period of years.

Remember, the Hunley is located in an area that amounts to an underwater desert. Due to the loose, constantly moving sand, virtually nothing grows on the bottom. The shifting sands simply don't allow for the growth of coral, sponges, seaweed, oysters, mussels, or any of the other form of marine life that needs to attach itself to a stable surface. The movement of this sand can be clearly observed by the sand ripples and sand waves that cover the entire area where the Hunley is located. I imagine, that to a very large degree, it was the movement of these sands that contributed to the rapid burial of the submarine.

The Hunley is situated less than two miles from the mouth of the Charleston jetties and is thus alternately flooded with brackish waters (a mixture of salt and fresh waters) from the harbor and the higher salinity saltwater of the ocean as the tide ebbs and flows twice a day. A high content of fresh water retards or kills the growth of saltwater life, while the higher salinity of the pure saltwater kills life that could grow in fresher waters.

The outflow from the harbor also carries particulate matter (silts) from the rivers and harbor that clog and kill micro-organisms as they start to attach on hard surfaces like the Hunley.

The Hunley site is in the open ocean in just 27' of water. Even on a relatively calm day the force of the waves (one cubic yard of sea water weighs approximately one ton) churn and tumble the loose bottom, suspending fine sand and crushed shell, which not only clog the pores of the marine animals, they abrade and destroy most of them before they can attach themselves to anything sticking out of the bottom.

Internationally known shipwreck expert Gary Gentile who has "dived hundreds of shipwrecks" and has "testified before Congress and in federal courts as an expert witness on shipwrecks" is an author of "more than a dozen books on shipwrecks, nautical history, and wreck diving techniques" and in his letter of October 7, 1996, to Senator McConnell (copy attached) states: "Wreckage which is periodically exposed for short durations generally will not become noticeably encrusted. Barnacles and other marine fouling organisms require time to attach and grow. Thus a wreck or parts of a wreck which are found beneath the bottom may show no signs of previous exposure. On the contrary, a wreck may have suffered periods of long exposure decades in the past; when re-exposed, there may be evidence of old encrustation in the form of broken shell material or the gluey substrate used by marine fouling organisms in attachment."

The archeologists' own reports of the poor visibility on the site are credible evidence of the constant sand movement around the Hunley. The poor visibility they fought and complained about is a direct result and confirmation of that sand movement.

I have obtained (and attached to this document) several letters which, in part, address the issue of marine growth and the movement of sands in shallow water.

The first I want to mention is from John Brandon. Brandon has been "an historical shipwreck diver for the past 30 years," and "the State of Florida has hundreds of historically important and intrinsically valuable artifacts and treasures in its collection" that Brandon has recovered. Brandon has "explored hundreds of shipwrecks dating from 1618 though the 1800's and in a variety of different marine environments." In a "To Whom it May Concern" letter (copy attached) dated December 19, 1996, Brandon stated: "From the information I have it would seem that the Hunley falls within the shallow water high energy environment. This area is generally construed as water depths of less than 50 feet, in an area frequently swept by severe storms, generating wave and surge action cable of effecting the bottom terrain. If the Hunley is indeed in 30 feet of water, off the Carolina coast, it would certainly fall within this environment. Extensive documentation exists that supports the movement of sand within these shallow water, high energy environments. Shipwrecks around the world are known to cover and uncover within these high energy environments. Some vessels and/or their remains will uncover for months or years at a time before becoming sanded over again, while some vessels will only uncover at certain times, generally after the passage of large storms, only to recover again within days after the storm's passage. There are any number of combinations that might occur."

In a section relating to the question of marine growth Brandon wrote: "On the site of one of the 1715 fleet wrecks near Sebastian Inlet, Florida, there are a number of iron cannons located in about 10 to 15 feet of water, in 5 or 6 feet of sand, between two shallow reefs. Owing to the lack of marine growth on these guns one might be tempted to deduce that they have never been uncovered, which would be a wrong assumption. Kip Wagner provides information in his book `Pieces of Eight.' as to the exposure of these cannons and their re-burial. The passage of hurricane Andrew across the Miami, Fl. area also provides some insight to the power of the ocean and storm generated wave action. Several artificial reefs, consisting of at least one large aircraft and several sunken vessels, some in water depths of over 100 feet, were greatly affected by the passage of this storm, causing them to be severally broken up and scattered on the bottom." It should also be noted that when Brandon responded to a question about the size of Spence's claim area he wrote: "Dr. Spence has advised me that his admiralty arrest area encompasses a mere 500 yard radius. To file on such a small area in the open Atlantic brings two things to mind. First, the salvor would appear to have intimate first hand knowledge of the vessel's location. It would seem if the salvor was making only an educated guess he would apply for the much more standard 3,000 yard radius thereby increasing his odds tremendously of a right guess." He summed everything up when he wrote: "As for myself, I see no reason to doubt Dr. Spence and indeed it would appear that he had made considerable efforts, well prior to most recent re-discovery of the Hunley by Clive Cussler and NUMA, to share his discovery with the world, only to be thwarted by bureaucratic red tape."

Scientist Greg A. Hawley, who has participated in seven or eight shipwreck expeditions in the Caribbean and was the "Lead Electrical Engineer for the Space Programs Department at Sandia National Laboratories" wrote: "given the description of the wrecksite conditions, I would expect that the portions of the Hunley to partially uncover and recover through the actions of hurricanes, storm tides, or other causes at any time over a period of years." Hawley went on to say: "on Old Providence Island, Colombia, at least two shipwrecks that I know of located in sandy areas periodically cover and uncover due to the ocean currents. This covering and uncovering can occur fairly rapidly, in a matter of hours or days. I would not expect marine growth to form on submerged objects in an area of relatively little marine growth if the objects are predominately covered and only occasionally become uncovered."

Gary Gentile, who's letter of October 7, 1996, to Senator McConnell and his extensive credentials as a shipwreck expert were referenced earlier, wrote: "A shallow wreck in the open ocean lies in a dynamic location: it is continually exposed to tides and storms and is subject to their deleterious effects. The bottom shifts quickly under these conditions. It is not uncommon for a wreck's amount of exposure to change dramatically overnight after a storm, or slowly throughout the months, weeks, or even days, as the variable forces of the tide alter the bottom contours and change the depths as sand or silt is deposited on or eroded from a site: these are never-ending phases which may alternately cover or expose portions of a wreck which lies just under the bottom. A portion of a wreck exposed by a storm may be covered during the next tide; or the tide may expose a portion of a wreck whose cover is shallow."

Ken Kinkor, Project Historian and Director of Project Research & Development for the Whydah Project at Cape Cod, Massachusetts, in his October 10, 1996, letter to Senator McConnell (copy attached) states in his section 6: "A wreck in 28' of water, presently covered by 1' - 3' of sand, silt & shell, has almost certainly been covered and recovered several times in its time on the bottom." In his section 6.b. he adds: "To my certain knowledge, wrecks covered with sand one day, can easily be exposed the next day. There are, however, too many variables to say with certainty whether or not marine growth would occur on the wreck during its intervals of exposure."

Dan Berg, who is the owner of Aqua Explorers Inc. and has written ten shipwreck and diving related books and hosts and produces the ongoing Wreck Valley TV series, has spent the past 15 years of his life "researching, searching and filming shipwrecks, wrote in his October 30, 1996, letter (copy attached) to Senator McConnell: "Mr. Spence also asked if I would expect this wreck to partially uncover at times. The answer is absolutely yes. I have witnessed over four feet of sand being removed from a wreck in one storm. I have also observed a two ton winch in 130 feet of water moved and knocked over by the power of Mother Nature."

Possibly more to the point is Wayne Strickland's letter of January 23, 1997. Strickland is both an archeological diver and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Southport Maritime Museum in Southport, North Carolina.

I barely know Strickland. He certainly doesn't owe me any favors. Yet the letter he has written clearly supports my contention that it is not reasonable to believe that the Hunley has not been exposed numerous times in the past twenty-seven years.

Strickland's statements are not merely unproved scientific theory, they are his credible observations and are the direct result of over thirty years of experience diving on shipwrecks in waters far deeper than those found over the Hunley site and his personally observing the changing sand levels.

At one point in his letter Strickland states "Hurricane Hugo merely brushed (emphasis his) the Frying Pan Shoals area when it made landfall a little further down the east coast. After the storm had passed, we dived the wreck, and found four feet (emphasis his) of sand had been removed from the wreck, with much more wreckage exposed than we had seen before." He goes on to state that the sand returned to its `normal level' (emphasis his) over the winter, but that hurricane Bertha removed four feet from the same wreck, and shortly thereafter another two feet were removed by hurricane Fran. He also adds "Of course, (as) we have experienced during our years of excavations, sand often returns to previous levels within a period of only a few days time" (emphasis his).

The wreck Strickland was discussing was the City of Houston which sits in well over three times the depth of water as the Hunley. As any competent marine archeologist or oceanographer can tell you, the deeper the water, the less effect the wind and waves have on the bottom, and the less movement of sand.

The fiercest part of hurricane Hugo passed directly over the Hunley site. It slammed into nearby Sullivan's Island with such explosive force that the portion of the island closest to the Hunley site looked like a bomb had destroyed it. Unfortunately, my own home and some of my notebooks documenting my field work relating to the Hunley were destroyed in that terrible storm. Fortunately, hundreds of other papers (primarily letters to and from government officials and other interested parties, but some field notes) directly relating to my efforts to secure permission to salvage the Hunley were at my Charleston office and survived.

Millions of cubic yards of sand were washed off our State's beautiful beaches. Pawley's Island, although out of the main path of the hurricane, was literally cut in half by the force of the hurricane driven seas.

How anyone who lived in Charleston when hurricane Hugo tore through our lovely state can say that the Hunley, shallowly buried in loose sand, in just 27' of water, in the direct path of Hugo, was not exposed by the storm escapes me. I believe they would have to be either a complete fool or a liar. Yet that is exactly what the certain government archeologists, who did not experience Hugo's transit through Charleston, are effectively saying when they claim that the Hunley has not been exposed in over fifty years.

I hope the Hunley Commission members are not unduly impressed by the technical jargon and theories put forth by those who for questionable motives might wish to deny me credit for my discovery. Instead, I hope they will use their personal knowledge and common sense and realize that the very idea that I went against the historical record, and guessed the Hunley's correct location and the smaller diameter decades before highly competent researchers and scientists found her is absolutely absurd. It is just as absurd as the idea that the Hunley had not been exposed in over fifty years before the SCIAA and National Park Service archeologists did their studies.

Perhaps professional salvor Charles Lackey's affidavit of December 16, 1996, sums it up best when he says: "Mr. Spence believes they are twisting the data so they will not have to admit that the organizations they work for failed to do their job for decades. I think he is wrong about their motives. The government archeologists probably believe what they are saying. However, I doubt they are correct. I hire scientists and archeologists on a regular basis and they all seem to think they are infallible. But, I know they make mistakes. After all, they are human, not gods. Their mistakes have cost my companies millions, but we still use them because they serve a function. You should use them too, but do not automatically take their opinions as fact or you may be making a serious mistake. All scientific data has to be interpreted. If the people interpreting the data lack experience or are just focusing on part of the data it is easy for them to come to the wrong conclusion. This can be true even if the data is perfect, which it rarely is. Surely you remember the childhood tale of the blind men, each examining different parts of an elephant. Each had his own view of the truth. Underwater archeology is a relatively new field and almost no one has more experience in it than Mr. Spence. You would be wise to trust him. I do. I believe he discovered the Hunley."

I respectfully ask that the Commission accept this sworn affidavit and the supporting attachments as sufficient evidence of my discovery. If, for any reason, the members of the Hunley Commission considers this submitted material as insufficient evidence of my discovery, please give me the opportunity to present several hundred pages of additional evidence (consisting of letters, government documents, court records, additional affidavits, field notes, and charts) from the 1970s and 1980s which more fully explain and document my discovery. Let me present them in private or in an open meeting of the Hunley Commission. I will be happy to submit the additional evidence under oath. Just give me a fair hearing.