The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-03-17

the matter in the committees that it has led
to the project of sweeping the whole four
millions into the Treasury, letting the navy
whistle for its money. One ingenious mathe-
matcian in the House Committee of Appro-
priations took OCCASION in the conference
committee, to state that "Our navy is the
most extravagant in the world, while the Bri-
tish navy is the most economical" thus
showing that it would require large book
to contain all not known on the subjec He
went on to inform the committee that the
total amount appropriated for the British
navy was but three millions of pounds ster-
ling per annum, which assertion so startled
his fellow-members that they dropped the
discussion to give each other time TO obtain
further information on the subject.
Now, for the enlightenment of the said
committee, 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 appropriated for the British navy,
after deducting estimated extra receipts and
repayments to be paid into the exchequer.
These amounts foot up G10, 238, 900. At five
dollars the pound sterling this amounts to, in
gold, $51, ,194,950. This in currency would
be $61, 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 newspapers during working
time, and material is one-half the cost it is
in the United States as we can see by refer
ring to our tariff. Therefore the same num-
Der of war vessels that are kept in commission
by the British Government would cost
1922, S47, $50 per annum if kept in commits
sion by our Government, making difference
in the expenses of our navy and that of Great
Britain during the last year of $102, SAT, $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 arithmetic.
In 1868 England had in commission one
hundred and ninety vessels of war, all told,
including line-of-battle ships, iron-cased ves-
sells, 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, etc.
The United States had in commission sixty
seven vessels, including wooden frigates,
sloops, small gunboats, receiving ships, train
ing ships for apprentices, store ships, train
ing 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 Births navy. Taking the appropriations
for our navy in 1868 and comparing them
with the British estimates as above stated, it
will be found that our expenditures were only
one-sixth of those of the British and even
admitting that the labor and material ex-
penses should be thrown out of the question,
our expenditures still remain but one-third of
those of the British navy. If, after this, a
Republican Congress think proper to lay up
our navy when the best interests of the coun-
try demand that it be put in order, they can
do so but they will be reminded from time
to time by figures that cannot lie that there
are persons who are not to be deceived by
statements put forth in committees calculated
to prevent the proper appropriation of money
for the national defense.
The following are the estimates for the sup
port of the French navy or the year 1906
The total estimate for the support of the navy
is 1862, S45,022 francs, equal to $32, $50, ,OO4
l(gold). The number of seamen exclusive of
officers) is 36, $50. The number of mechanics,
ETC., is 3,400. This does not look as if our
navy was such tremendous affair