The New York herald., 1870-03-16

| v"r NAVY ExtravagantIy WSssS0u v
Comparison with tho British and Frouch
! Naviss.
When the present administration o. the
Nav Department came into power II had bit
a sma. allowance Of funds and large allow
ance Of Secretary Welles' debts to pay but 1t
put forth all its energies, set men to work on
the rotten old huiks that encumbered the navy
yards, and by fitting in timber here and
timber there had In tho course of nine months
thirty-eight vessels fitted for sea. These,
however, are not enough to relieve the rotten
hulks in foreign waters, some Of which
had to be sold abroad because the COM
manders- s-in-chief dared not send them home.
When the appropriation was exhausted tho
Navy Department stopped work in the Bureaus
OF Construction and Steam Engineering, deter
mined to expend no money not authorized by
law. Then by . close calculation, cutting
down in one bureau and pairing down in
another, 1t collected OF its own funds appro-
priated by Congress four millions of dollars
which it simply asked Of Congress permission
to use to continue the work Of resurrection.
One days investigation into this matter was
sufficient to have made members of Congress
acquainted with The true state Of the case It
was not an appropriation that the Secretary
asked for, but transfer from one bureau to
another Of money already in possession Of the
department, appropriated by Congress for
naval purposes. The whole thing has, how
ever, been so muddled and misrepresented by
those who have charge Of the matter in the COM
mittees that 1t has led to the project of sweep
ing the whole four millions into the Treasury
and letting the navy whistle for its money.
One ingenious mathematician in the House
Committee Of Appropriations took occasion,
in the conference committee, to state that sour
navy is the most extravagant in the world,
while the British navy Is the most economi-
CAL thus showing that it would require
subject. He went on to inform the committee
that the total amount appropriated for the
British navy was but three millions of pounds
sterling per annum. which assertion so startled
his fellow members that they dropped the dis
cussion to give each other time to obtain far
tucI lHOTlHdllOu Ou Inc buDJoCC.
Now, for the enlightenment of the said COM
mittee, we beg leave to state the facts in the
case, which are copied from the British navy
estimates for 1869, and which is an average
estimate for preceding years, few thousand
dollars more or less We find in the estimates
referred to the following net amounts appro-
priated for the British navy, after deducting
estimated extra receipts and repayments to
be paid into the exchequer. These amounts
foot up slO, 23s, 99O At Eve dollars the pound
sterling this amounts to, in gold, $5l, l94, $50.
This in currency would be $6l, 423, $40.
Now, by the same authority, we know that
labor in England is just one-half Of what it is
In this country. Men in the dockyards there
work ten hours day, without reading news
papers during working time, and material is
one-half the cost it is in the United States, as
we can see by referring to our tariff. There
fore, the same number Of war vessels that are
kept in commission by the British government
would cost 1922, ,S47, $3.50 per annum if kept in
commission by our government, making Q diff
ference in the expenses of our navy and that
Of Great Britain during the last year Of
$lO2, ,S47, $50 in favor of our establishment
These are calculations that any boy Of twelve
years can make, and we commend to our
legislators the study Of their arithm etic
In 1868 England had in commission one
hundred and ninety vessels of war, all told,
including line-of-battle ships, iron-cased
vessels, frigates, corvettes, sloops, gunnery
ships, stationary receiving and depot ships,
troop ships, store ships, drill ships, tenders or
tugs, guard ships Of the coast guard, &c.
The United States had in commission sixty
seven vessels, including wooden frigates,
sloops, small gunboats, receiving ships, train
ing ships for apprentices, store ships, training
ships for midshipmen, tugs, iron-clads, wooden
sailing vessels and gunnery ships. None of
these exceed frigate in size, and they number
only one-third Of the vessels in the British navy.
Taking the appropriations for our navy in
estimates as above stated, 1t will be found that
our expenditures were only 0ne-sixth Of those
Of the British, and even admitting that the
labor and material expenses should be thrown
out of the question, our expenditures still re-
main but one third of those of the British navy
IT. after this, republican Congress think
proper to lay up our navy when the best in
terests of the country demand that it be put in
order, they can do SO; but they will be re-
minded from time to time by figures that can
not lie that there are persons who are not to
be deceived by statements put forth in COM
mittees calculated to prevent the proper appro-
priation Of money for the national defence.
The following are the estimates for the sup
port of the French navy for the year 1S70:-
The total estimate for the support Of the
navy is 162, S45, ,022 francs, equal to $32 500, 004
(gold). The number Of seamen Exclusive Of
oflcers) is sc, $50. The number Of mechanics,
&C., is 49, 400. This does not look as if our
navy was such o tremendous affair.