Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1880-08-21
10 qj1THE OOSTnOF6 6NAVIES.u .usIe
- Tsdioua si sIst-4r- s9Gilis s-IDg
The Relative Expenditures OF Seven
Countries-TheE English Ad.
!" n,rai,y xdmini.tra-
ad lFrom the ,P.ll Mall Gazette j

al yl4B Il Aoih buSA .AeSA S1sHs WI
There is often, AN, uneasy suspicion
abroad that the sums which we are
Called upons to pay for our national
defenses, and (which everyone admits
to be- of t0rmidsble amount are not
very, wisely expended, Fears Are from
time to time expressed that we get
exceedingly little for our money, and
that weq 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 ourUmOney, and if it be rea-
.souably sufficient, is, to compare the
duties which our forces are expected
to perform, end the expense attend
ing them, with the same in the case
of foreign powers. The naval ex-
pendlture OF the chief maritime, states
is as follows: England, 9l0, $50 ,903
France, 1852, ,839; United States,
94. 100000; Russia, IS 500 1868 Ger
many; E2, ,286 1889 Italy, t1,772,975 !;
Austria. E845, ,264. The English eX-
penditure 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. Ii chief ouject of kesp-
ing up a naval force he the protection
OF maritime commerce, we should
tndithat to protect c.erv7l0O tons OF
merchant shipping sailing under the
national flag COSTS annually :; in
France, E77S; Russia, E694; Austria,
G256; Germany, G2l4 Italy, G1S7 !;
United Staies, 9lI5 Eng land, 10.
To protect every Il,O0O worth OF sea-
horne imports and exports takes lin
Russia about f35 49,; Austria,
E2S 1Os.; France, E26 16s.; Italy,
1925 Ss.; Germany. G22 26..; United
States, Ell 6s..; England .el7 6s. In
none OF the above cases has the trade
of colonial dependencies. other. than
| with the mother country, been taken
/ into account, or the figures of Eng
land wOul III fail relatively lower. All
the, same time, il has been impossible
to show any pecuniary value for the
| duty of providing against invasion,
which the navy of an imsuiarS tate
i has, 10 carry out, or Of securing tho
impor. of large portion of the
necessary food supply of the inhabi.
tants. The figures as yet given show
only the outlay for the purpose oi
securing the performance of cert al,
duties, and exhibit rather the amoum
which eaclI country Trunks it desira
bic to cxpehd on il. than the cost o
the agents aud instruments bv means
Eof which it is carried out. The out
i lay may be more or less than neces
sary as hitherto stated, it tells u
~,
fefmance. 1t the aim OF the nava
administrator be TO keep up in tim
of peace as, large a fleet for service
when required as the sum at his dis
lposal will allow, we may see wha
the cost of doing SO is in differen
states. For Instance, the annual sun
necessary to keep up Oh their presen
scale every ton Of armored and uli
aralored fighting shipping in the sea
going squadrons, and to MAINTAIN TIN
reserves and establishments, as wei
as the, personnel required. by il, dc
duced from the total cxpcnd is
III the UlIited States, 9l2O A. il
Russia nearly aE1O0, i'll France
E54 IS. ;in GERMANY $50 o.; i'll Eng
land, 945 49,; In italy, 94U 4s.l, il
Austria, e31 s.. 1t should be oh
served that the two nations who's
expenditure per ton is less than tha
of ourselves, Italy, and Austria, IL
not maintain sea-going sQuadrons ol
stations at distance from home al
the others do. AS the cost off III
personnel enters into the above. pro
portion, it naturally follows that i,
navies recruited by voluntary enroll
ment the sum is higher than it woul,
be were compulsory service to force
Ihus, in Russia, where the cost pc
: ION is much above that in all Othe
European - countries, the averag
share of each member of the person
; mel in the total expenditure, GS5l IL.
is the lowest. Even here that q
England ESQ L., is exceeded by tina
ot the United States, France, an
Germany. From the above statistic
it is evident that the English &C
mirafty administration, whether econ
Omical er not, is at all events no tabi
I more SO than that of any other Ia
: ton. 1t certainly succeeds in gettim
more for each pound spent than
> got by the.ministry of marine of an
foreign naval power. The costlies
: item, Is, as m,ght have been expected
the wages of each seaman. We al
. often told on high authority that Il
l long as we depend on voluntary Ell
; listment to fill up the ranks Of GU
!, army we must expect to have large
army estimates than continental II;
u tons, in which compulsory servic
!. is the rule. But the navy also d,
! pends on getting the services Of vo
untcers, and, moreover, has to ente
s into direct competition in the labc
market with the two greatest me
: camille marines in the world-ou
: own and the American. In spite {
0 the higher price these latter are read
to give for the skilled labor of IL
able seaman. we still manage to oil
y talu il tor a share in The total cost
Il the navy which compares ,favorabl
with that incurred by other power
u EX-GOVERNOR BROWN AT EASTO]
- MISSOURI.