The Osceola times., 1880-09-18
THE COST OF NAVIES.
The Relative Expenditures of Seven Coun-
tries-The English Admiralty
Administration.
Pail Mall Gazette.

abroad that the sums which we are call
ed upon to pay for our national delenses,
and which every one admits to be OF
formidable amount, are not very wisely
expended. Fears are from time to time
expressed that we get exceedingly little
for our money, and that we might largely
diminish our expenditure without caus.
ing our forces to fall below the standard
of efficiency which is thought quite high
enough by other great powers. The
best way of seeing what return we get
for our money, and if it be reasonably
sufficient, is to compare the duties
which our forces are expected to per-
form, and the expense attending them,
with the same in the case of foreign
powers. The naval expenditure of the
chief maritime states is as follows:
England, el0, $50, ,903; France, e. ,252 ,S39;
United States, G4,700,000; Russia,
f3,559 ,36s; Germany, e2,2S6.SS9; Italy,
| E1,772,975: Austria, fSi5,264. The
English expenditure is about one-thrd
higher than that of France, and more
| than double that OF any other power.
But the object supposed to be insured
| by it differs considerably in the several
countries. II chief object of keeping
up naval force be the protection OF
maritime commerce, we should find that
| to protect ever; 100 tons of merchant
shipping sailing under the national flag
costs annually-in France. E77S; Russia
f69i; Austria, e256; Germany, e2l4
Italy, GIS7; United States, fl75; England
| Ellis. To protect every El 600 worth ol
sea-borne imports and exports takcs-in
Russia about e35 lSs; Austria, eos los
France, e26 los; Italy, e25 s.; Ger
many, G22 26s, United States, G2l 6s
| England, Gl7 6s. In none of the above
cases has the trade of colonial depen.
| denotes, other than with the mother
country, been taken into account, or the
figures oe England would fall relatively
lower. At the sane time, it has been
impossible to show any pecuniary value
for the duty of providing against inva
sion, which the navy of an insular state
has to carry out, or of securing the i'm
port of a large portion of the necessary
food supply of the inhabitants The
figures as yet given show only the out
lay for the purpose of securing the per
formance of certain duties, and exhibit
rather the amount which each country
thinks it desirable to expend on it than
| the cost of the agents and instruments
by means of which it is carried out
| The outlay may be more or less than
necessary; as hitherto stated, il tells US
| nothing concerning economy of perform
ance. If the aim of the naval admins
traitor be to keep up in time OF peace a.
large a feet for service when required
as the sum at his disposal will allow, W,
may see what the cost Of doing so is il
| different States. For instance. the an
nual sum necessary to keep up on thei
present scale every ton of armored anC
unaimored fighting shipping in the sea
going squadrons, and to maintain thu
reserves and establishments, as well a
the personnel required by it, deduce,
from the total expenditure is-in thu
| United States, fl20 A.; in Russia nearl,
elO0; in France, G54 6s; in Germany
$50 IS; in England, G43 lSs; in Italy
e40 As; in Austria, G3l SIS. 1t should b'
observed that the two nations whose ex
penditure per ton is less than that O
ourselves, Italy, and Austria, do no
maintain sea-going squadrons on station
at a distance from home; all the other
do. As the cost of the personnel enter
into the above proportion, it NATURAL,
follows that IN navies recruited by vol
untary enrolment the sum is highe
than it would be were compulsory ser
vice in force. Thus, in Russia, wher
the cost per ton is much above that il
all other European countries, the aver
age share of each member of the person
mel in the total expenditure, eS5 lbs j
the lowest. Even here that of England
ESQ Is, is exceed by that of the Unite,
States, France, and Germany. From
the above statistics il is evident tina
the English admiralty administration
whether economical or not, is at al
events notably more so than that Of an,
other nation. II certainly succeeds II
getting more for each pound spent thai
is got by the ministry of marine of an,
foreign naval power. The costIest item
Is, as might have been expected, tn,
wages of each seaman. We are offer
told on high authority that as long a
we depend on voluntary enlistment {,
fill up the ranks of our army we mus
EXPECT to have larger army estimate
than continental nations, IN which com
pulsory service is the rule. But tn,
navy also depends on getting the ser
vices of volunteer :, and, moreover, ha
to enter into direct competitor in th,
labor market with the two greatest mer
camille marines in the world-our owl
and the American. In spite of tn
higher price these latter are ready f
give the skilled labor of the able sea
man, we still manage to obtain 1t for
share in the total cost OF the navy whicl
compares favorably with that incurre'
by other powers.
| Russian Medical Women,