The Canton advocate. [volume] (Canton, D.T. [S.D.]) 1877-1897, 1880-09-02
THE COST OF NAvIEs.

THE COST OF NAvIES.
The Relative Expenditures or seven
COuntries---The English Adnairalty
Administration.
| Pail Mall Gazette
There is often an uneasy suspicion
abroad that the sums which we are
called upon to pay for our national de-
fenses, and which everyone admits to
be of formidable amount, are not very
wisely expended. Fears are from time
to time expressed that we get exceed
ingly little for our money, and that we
might largely diminish our expendi-
ture without causing 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 COM
pare the duties which our forces are
expected 70 perform, and the expense
attending them, with the same in the
case Of foreign powers. The naval ex-
penditure of the chief marine states is as
follows: England, 91O, $50, 1868; France,
f7 ,252, 2,839; United States, El,7OO,OOO;
Russia, 93, ,559, 1868; Germany, E2,286,-
839; Italy, 81, ,772, ,975; Austria, 1885,
264. The English expenditure is about
one-third 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. If chief object of
keeping up q naval force be the pro-
lection of maritime commerce, we
should find that to protect every 100
tons of merchant shipping sailing under
the national flag costs annually-in
France, s77S Russia, 1884; Austria,
s256; Germany, f214; Italy, 9187;
United States, 9175; England, ELS;
To protect every 41,OOO worth of sea-
borne imports and exports takes-in
Russia about 935 1885,; Austria, EOS 1Os.;
France, EGG 16s.; Italy, Eos ss.; Ger
many, 922 26s.; United States, s21 6s.;
England, Ell 6s. In none Of the above
cases has the trade of colonial depend
encies, other than with the mother
country been taken into account, or
the figures of England would fail rela-
lively lower. At,the same time, it has
been impossible to show any pecuniary
value for the duty of ofproviding against
invasion, which the navy of an insular
state has to carry out, or of securing
the import of large portion of the
necessary food supply Of the inhabi-
tants. The figures as yet given show
only the outlay for the purpose of Sc
curing the Performance of certain du-
ties, 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, it tells us nothing con-
cerning economy of performance. If
the aim Of the naval administrator be
to keep up in time of peace as large a
fleet for service when required as the
sum at his disposal will allow, we may
see what the cost of doing SO isin differ
ent states. For instance, the annual
sum necessary to keep up on their
present scale every ton of armored and
unarmored fighting shipping in the sea-
going squadrOns, an to maintain the
reserves and establishments, as well as
the personnel required by it, deduced
from the total expenditure is-in the
Uuited States, f120 4s.; in Russia, nearly
f10O; in France, G54 6s.; Germany,
ESQ 6s.; in England, E43 1885,; in Italy,
94O 4s.; in Austria, f31 8s. 1t should
be observed that the two nations whose
expenditure per ton is less than that of
ourselves, Italy and Austria, do not
maintain sea-going squadrons on sta
tions at a distance from home; all the
others do. As the cost of the personnel
enters into the above proportion, it
naturally follows that in navies recruit
ed by voluntary enrolment the sum is
higher than it would be were compul-
sorry service in force. Thus, in Russia,
where the cost per ion is much above
that in all other European countries,
the average share of each membor of
the personnel in the total expenditure,
E85 Us. is the lowest. Even here that
of England, ESQ 12 g., is exceeded by
that Of the United States, France and
Germany From the above statistics it
is evident that the English admiralty
administration, whether economical or
not, is at all events notably more SO
than that of any other nation. 1t GER
tainly succeeds in getting more for each
pound spent than is got by the minis
try of marine of any foreign naval
power The costliest item is, rs might
have been expected, the wages Of each
seaman. We are often told on high
authority that as long as we depend on
voluntary enlistment to fill up the
ranks of our army we must expect to
have larger army estimates than conti-
mental nations, in which compulsory
service is the rule. But the navy also
depends on getting the service Of vol
unteers, and, moreover, has to enter
into direct competition in the labor
market with the two greatest mercan-
tile marines in the world-our own and
the American. In spite of the higher
price these latter are ready to give for
the skilled labor Of the able seaman,
we still manage to obtain it for share
in the total cost of the navy which
compares favorably with that incurred
by other powers.