The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-05-11

The Pepnsvlvanion, in it, issue OF the otn
instant. thinks that in the SELECTION OF mr.
Doss,r as Secretary Of the Navy the PREsI-
DENT has not mistaken the qualifications ne
cess.rv to a proper and healthfal administra-
ton Of our naval affairs. We shall be happy
to see the Psnnsyluanian's opinion justified by
the course Of the new Secretary. There is
perhaps some justice in the remarks Of that
journal on the inefficiency of the navy and the
abuses in that arm of the public service need
ing correction; and though we have not thus
far seen any particular manifestation Of the
ability of MIR. DoBBIN in the management of
our naval affairs, yet if he manfully comes up
to the work before him. as predicted by the
Pennsyludnian, we shall not hesitate to con-
gratulate the country on the result. The fol-
lowing are the continuous remarks Of the Dem
ocratic journal to which we have alluded:
"Unfor,unately for the navy and the country,
men have usually been selected for the NAVY De.
partment i'll qualified to give tone and vigor to the
service. which could alone be accomplished by q
straightforward, manly. and independent admin
isration Of its details. Unwise counsels have pre-.
vailed to an alarming extent, rendering our naval
establishment, OF late years. little better than
mere appendage Of imbecilty and corruption.
The people became tired and disgusted with it,
while their representatives in Congress steadily
refused appropriations for any thing more than to
keep It in existence. Not that the navy had not
won imperisbable honors for the country. and
would not again and at all times distinguish itself
when called upon; but the expenditures have been
| 50 vastly disproportioned to the extent and eff
cheney of the materel of the service that the
| try with united voice cried Hold.
"How to remedy the evil appears to have been
| difficult Of solution. The Board OF Navy Commits
sioners which had existence prior to 1912, was dis
solved in consequence of its inc Efficiency and extra
vagance; whereupon the Bureau system was ca
tabshed, in the hope that the individual RESPONSE
bity of its chief would impart healthier tone and
| reanimato the service; but unfortunately for iti
success, sprigs were ingrafted upon the most i'm.
| portant branches Of the tree, which caused more
nourishmentfor its support than Congress has been
willing to yield, andit has conse quently proved q
failure, for the very class Of men Who materially
assisted to bring odium upon the former organixa-
ton, have shamelessly crept into the bureau and
perPetrated the same enormities. So fragrant have
been abuses that Congress pass ed law at the last
session forbidding payment to any naval captain
al chief Of the Bureau of Construction, EQUIP.
| Inent ana nepalf, anu requiring naval con
structor to be placed at the head of that division
But there is another defect in the law of 1872 which
also ought to be remcdied. For instance, hat car
afford more absurd contrast than ordnance and
hydrogrophy?-the construction of guns or weapons
| of and the measuring of water!
| "Thc two Bureaus Construction, Equipment
and Repair and Ordinance and photography
were, at the last moment Of last session in 1912
constituted thus at the special solicitation of GER
tain naval captains, we should say commodores
for the purpose of securing themselves snug berths
on full pay, at the gay metropolis. And what il
the RESULT Congress finding itself deceived in the
proper execution of the law, refuses to assent to
any more squandering of the public money through
| the ignorance and reckessness of misplaced off
GERS, and especially confines payment to a nava
constructor for whom the bureau was expressly
intended. 1t has long been averred that the mos
| important Improvements in naval science, advo
Gated BY our admirably qualified naval construc-
tors, and accomplished engineers of the navy
have been disregarded, or opposed by the igno
rance of heads of bur eaus, because they were no
previously consulted to know whether such re-
Communications would be agreeable to them
This may seem exaggeratiop, but We are assured il
Ia true. Vessels costing but thirty (830) dollars
per ton to build anew, have, through shcer reck.
lessIess and ignorance, cost sixty { 500 dollars
per ton to repair! Contracts have been made and
signed while the very signer himself did not n.
dsrstand the specialities. Can the country lon
ger tolerate such prohigacyi We emphatcally
say, no 20