The New York herald., 1870-05-18

gress. Tne gentleman nom Maine Mr. Hale) had
contrasted the American Navy with the nayies OF
foreign rowe boz r. might g wen have
uawss as Im impoDs S q stse@pt 20 fashion me navy
Powers Bnt the Navy Department. NOT content with
the manifest and often Expressed WIN Of the law
making power In limiting appropriations nad anago-
on pursuing course Inconsistent with that marked
outfor IT BY Congress- N was In this antagonism
or other Powers that It had Always been out Of
harmony with the lsw-making power. the present
condition o. We navy Was not owing 70 nostluy on
ing the years OF the war; the average appropriation
tcr the navy had been less by more than ~ 600 oOo
!nan n. was Vas appropriated In this bill, and yet the
navy navy department insisted that It should have
Sav'U0ooo more; the complaint which the law-mak-
in9 puwea naa right 70 make against the Navy
navy was In the bad condition described why was
y that the United States navy cost three or four
Mr.. HALE asked Mr.. Dawes In reply whether eyerv.
thing dld not cost two three times US much In the
United states as 10 Great Britain.
Navy, which consisted OF only $500 men cost est
$9S 67l. while the estimate for the British navy
$40 600 600. Every vessel In the United States NAVY
cost an average annually Of $lss,9A, and in Tho
British % navy 10000 Every ton In the tonnage OF
In the British navy S72 %. To keep the American
navy anoat, to keep 1t in repair cost 5000 man.
to keep 1t up TO the standard. The United States
Navy Department had estimated for s6075,00o Tor
repairs, while the estimates OF the British navy for
the year ending March 81, 1870, for new ma.
chnery aud REPAIRS was but $4,000, TAO. at
the same rate OF cost as IN England the
s4sO,0O0 year. What was the reason for this vast
difYerencei The British estimates for the last ten
years varied but very itte man for man. vessel for
0fthe British navy was Just about 0netenth OF the cost
ior the repairs or the American navy, and yet the
condition In which Its friends described 1t to be. The
fault dil not lie with Congress. IL lay In lack Of
eilcency energy and spirit in the navy OF she pres
Mr.. LOGAN, rep) of Ill., said that there were in the
United States Navy 1,409 officers and but $500 men
one oiSer 70 every SIX mea AMI fraction over The
that over $5,o00 900 was paid to the officers There
were on the active st Of The navy 100 officers at sea-
fve at sea; twenty-five cOmnlodores only three at
sea; ffiy captains, only ten at sea; ninety command
es, only twenty-nine at sea. There were twenty
.cSr naval officers stationed al the Washington Navy
Yard alone IN short there were onlcers enough III
the navy 70 70 man navy sufficient to make war upon
the strongest naval power OF the world and but few
men. Why should this swarm oil Officers be kept
W tholt any necessity for thens n.
The debate being closed, the bill was conside. ed
by parag apis for amendment
Tie first para Graph was for the pay Of commits
stoned and warrant officers ut sea- ON shore, on
special service, and Of those the retired list ana
unemployed, and for mileage or transportation CT
onicers travelling under ORDERS S4,OO0,oO.
Mr.. WAsHBURN, Of Wis, offered an amendment
that no allowance shall be made TO officers Tor draw
ing bills, receiving disbursing money for SER
wants. fuel clothing, quarters, transportation &C.,
thus cutting of the thrty-three per cent allowance.
A long discussion elsued on the amendment. in
the course OF which letter was read from Secre-
tary Robson cOnrsntifng that Secretary Welles, In
making thu allowance, had not transcended his
authority, and that the allowance was and is law
full and relating the history OF the subject. M
Mr.. STEVENS moved as an amendment to the
amendment that thirty three per cent be added to
the pay OF all officers Of the navy below the rank OF
commodore sha1
The amendment offered by Mr.. Stevens was first
voted on when 1t appeared that there were 81 for II
and AZ against.
No quorum voting the committee rose, ana the
House at ten O'Clock adjourned.