The Portland daily press., 1870-05-18
sea, and stating that there were two command.

ers for each vessel.
Mr.. Sarye of California defended the paval
department, showing that the expenses OF the
current year had been economical; three mil
lions of dollars less had been spent in putting
the ships in order than had been spent under
Secretary Welles in watching its deacy. The
bill was niggardly in nearly every particular
and would cripple the navy. England appro-
priated for its navy S. for every dollar appro-
priated for the American navy, and yet the
navy department was abused because the Eng
ish ships were superior to those of the United
States.
Mr.. Cox of New York defended bis former
position criticising the department, charging 1t
with inefficiency extravaganza and incompe-
tency and vndicating the administration OF
Secretary Welles.
Mr. Dawes of Massachusetts,, chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations regretted to
be compelled to differ with the committee in
reference to this bill. That difference did mt
pies of the bill. His objection to it was that. Il
was neither one thing nor the other; that it
neither met the estimates of the Department. TO
carry out its plans and ideas nor revised these
plans and compelled the department to con-
form itself to tue policy of Congress. The gen.
tleman from Me-, (Mr. Hale) had contrasted
the American navy with the naves of foreiegn
powers, bnt he might as we'll have contrasted
the army of the United States with the armies
Oh iorelgn powers 1t would be impossible and
90 III isc dS upOSSlDie 10 dCtculpJ u llSulVh
the navy of the United States after the naves
OF foreign powers, but the navy department,
not content with the manifest and often eX-
pressed will Of the law making power in limit
ing appropriations had put itsefinto antagon-
ism with Congress and had insisted on pursu-
ing course inconsistent with that marked out
for 1T by Congress. 1t was in this antagonism
and with the purpose of likening it to the ma
vies of other powers that it had been out OF
harmony with the law making power. The
hostility on the part of Congress. For.the last
ten years, excluding the years of the war, the
average appropriation for the naay has been
less by more than SS2000000 than was appro-
priated in theibil, and yet the navy depart
ment insisted that it should have $4,000, coo
more. The complaint which the law making
power had the right to make against the navy
department was that with the money furnish
ed the navy was in the bad condition descrlb-
ed. Why was it that the United States navy
cost three or four times per man as much as
the navy of Great Britain.
Mr. Hale asked Mr. Dawes whether every.
thing did not cost two or three times as much
in the United States as it did in Great Britein?
= Mr. Dawes went on to say that the United
States navy, which consisted of only s, 800 men,
cost $2S ,205 GIL, while the estimate for the Brit
ISL navy last year, which consisted of $4,000
men, was only $49000O00 Every vessel in the
United States navy cost on an average apnu-
ally $1S, ,944 and in the British navy $9000(?).
Every ton IN the tonnage of the United States
navy cost $15, ITO per annum and in the Brit
ish navy $7,266. To keep the American navy
atioat and to keep it in repair cost it 5000
man, while the British navy costs but $50 to
keep it up to the standard. The United States
navy department had estimated for 1869, ST.
0O0 600 for repairs, while the estimates for the
British navy for the year ending March 81 !,
1870, for men, machinery and repairs was but
$4,000 749. AT the same rate of co st as in Eng
land the whole American navy should be kept
in repair for $4S6OOO year. What was the
reason for this vast difference? The British
navy estim9tes for the last ten years varied but
very little man forman, vessel for vessel, aud
ton Tor ton. The whole expenditure for the re-
pairs OF the British navy was about 1-10th of
the cost for the repairs of the American navy,
and yet the American navy has been allowed
to run down to the condition in which its
friends have described it to be. The fault did
not lay with Congress. 1t lay in the act OF eff
cheney, energy and spirit in the navy of the
present day.
Mr.. Logan said that there were in the United
States 1409 officers and but 8590snen, one Off
Ger to every six men and fraction over. The
pay of the navy was little over 81, 100000, and
OF that over So O000 600 was paid to the officers.
There were on the active list of the navy 759
officers at sea and on shore $50. There were 10
Rear Admirals and 5 at sea. There were %
Commodores and only 3 at sea; so Captains,
only 10 at sea; 90 Commanders, only 90 at sea.
There were "a naval officers stationed at the
Washington navy yard alone. In short there
were officers enough to man a navy sufficient
to make way upon the strongest naval power
of the world, and but few meu. Why should
this swarm Of officers be kept without any me-
cessty for them?
Mr.. Peck of Kentucky occupied the two min
utes allowed for general debate in condemning
the extravaganza of the Navy Department,
after which the bill was considered for amend
ments.
Mr.. Washburne of Wisconsin offered an
amendment to the first secti n, that no allow
apce be made to officers for drawing bills, re-
ceiving or disbursing money, or fo' servants,
fuel, clothing, quarters or transportation; thus
cutting off SO per cent of their allowances.
During the discussion Mr.. Cox of New York
asked leave to have read a letter from the late
Secretary Welles, of whom he said be would
as soon think of comparing an old scow to
magnificent ocean steamer as to compare Sec
retary Robson to Secretary Welles.
Mr.. Stevens of New Hampshire moved as an
amendment to the amendment that 33 per
cent. be added to the pay of all officers of the
navy below that of Commodore.
On call of the House no quorum voted and
the House adjourned.