New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-02-12
THE Y1T1LCADET QUESTION

Secretary Chandler protests against the pro-
posed restoration to the Navy OF the cadets VINO
were ut Annapolis when the law OF 1852 was
passed In aietter to member o. the house
Committee on Naval Affairs he asserts that this
measure would eventually cost the country
nearly S9,OO0,000. He considers that there Ia
no justification for such an expenditure in The
present condition of the Navy. He points ont
that under the act of 1882 the active list con-
sists of 1862 officers, or enough for seventy
shins.n The addition of 200 cadets to this list
the Secretary thinks unjustifable, and he hopes
that the contemplation of the proposed estab-
lisbrent. seventeen hundred naval officers and
not one modern ship or gun for them to COM
amand.r will arouse public opinion and prevent
an annual increase of 5000, 900 to the Navy APP
nronriation sonly because two hundred young
q men and their relatives and friends doubt their
stability, having received the best education the
country can furnish, to succeed i'll civil lie III
competition with the less favored mass OF
d" American boys"
Perbaps the concluding sentence of Mr..
Chambers letter is not quite fair to the cadets
The education they receive, however good, Is
intended to fit them for maritime and not for
q civil life. Every effort is made to give them
n nautical bent. Their minds are necessarily
turned away from civil and toward naval lie.
Such an education does not necessarily tit them
for civil lite. 1t may even be SAID to unfit them
TO n considerable extent. And we think 1t
ought to be frankly admitted that the case OF
these cadets is hard, and that they ought not TO
be blamed for complaining OF 1t. But Mr..
Chandler is on impregnable ground when he
points TO the folly of increasing the Navy list
ubeS there is "nOt modern ship or gun Tor
the officers 70 command Certainly the country
cannot be justified in going OH educating naval
officers indefinitely and putting them on the
active service list when there is no navy for
them to ,eryo in. Bat this is obviously a still
more forcbe argument for shutting mp the
Naval Academy altogether For if it Is absurd
and extrayacant to educate naval officers and
put them on the payroll, it is only less absurd
and extravagant to educate them without put
ting them on the payroll. Clearly II we are 10
have no Navy the sooner Annapolis is abolished
the better. Clearly also the fifteen hundred
naval officers now under commission ought to
be retired. To haggle Mt 200 cadets, and ac-
cept 1,5OO equally useless officers Is to strain
at gnat and swallow camel.
But one question is begged in this discussion.
II is, Are we to have a Navy Mr.. Chandler
seems to assume that we are not. The Ameri-
can people, if they comprehend their own IN
terests. will have TO take the opposite ground.
The truth is that we need Navy, anda Navy OF
magnitude sufficient to employ at least all the
officers now Oh the lists AS to the cadet ques-
ton, there does not appear to be any present
justification for restoring them to the Navy.
There is nothing for them to do; and
apart from the question of economy, to put 200
Young men into authorized idleness is to ex.
pose them to ruin. 1t is far better that they
should 60 into the world and make their own
way. At the same time it is plainly not wise to
keen I'D the manufacture of naval cadets at
present. The Naval Academy therefore ought
TO have its fires banked, so to speak. 1t should
be hove-to, to use nautical metaphor, until it
can proceed again usefully. 1t is quite as
irrational to keep ON educating young men for
profession to which they cannot obtain adj
mittance as to make them Ostensibly officers or
Navy which possesses no objective existence.
Meantime unusual efforts should be made
TO secure at least the beginnings OF an adequate
marine defensive force.