New-York tribune., 1907-12-24
THE CRITICISn OF THE NAVY.

The sailing of the battleship feet for the
Pacific has been seized upon as the occasion
for airing anew at moment when they were
thought likely to create a sensation certain
familiar criticisms Of the American navy. From
the assertions that are being made the public
might fairly be led to suppose that it was a
squadron of junk which Admiral Evans was
leading southwark. TO be compared only with
that ill fated embodiment of Russian naval
incompetence that sank or surrendered in the
Sea of Japan. In the management of our
navy, the designing and construction of our
ships, this country is represented as failure,
and it is plainly suggested that should our fleets
at any time meet in combat those of any first
class power with a real navy" the emptiness
of our pretensions to sea power would be as
fatally shown as was the hollowness of Rus
sias in the with Japan.
We are not inclined TO regard the naval au-
thorities as immune from criticism. In this
country we have often to depend upon intelll-
gent criticism to obtain the best results from
all sorts and conditions of public officials and
We take pride in the belief that in some
spects at least this enables to accomplish
better things than those nations which do
not enjoy freedom of criticism. But such 4
sensational outburst as the sailing of the fleet
has been regarded as the psychological mo-
ment' for must be simply bewldering to the
public. Who can be expected to believe, for
example. that the designers of American war
ships plan them in haphazard fashion: that
they do not know until ship is afioat whether
her armor belt will be above water or below
it. or whether then the captain will have to keep
an able seaman constantly employed baling
water out Of her forward big guns or not-in
fact, that all things considered, it is guesswork
with "our bureaucrats' whether the boat they
plan will turn out to be airship or a sub
marine? Yet this is hardly an exaggeration, so
stupid and happy -go-lucky are the methods of
the department represented to be-
If intelligent criticism is sought why not
tell the layman that ii is matter of opinion
where the armor belt warship should be;
that authorities differ and then, if it is possible
TO show, by the practice Of foreign nations or
otherwise that the American custom Of putting
the armor belt low is mistake why not go
ahead and show it? Why assert dogmatically
that ship with its heavy armor where that on
the American vessels is placed is protected only
against swordfsh and in case of real war would
have to run up on dry land to be safe? Why
not admit too. that the proper height of the
freeboard is a controversial point, and not imply
that through sheer stupidity the American de-
signers have got their guns SO low that they
too, like the armor belts, are mostly submerged?
low freeboard has been regarded as desir-
dpic CudIdclellSuc PROPER criticism would be
to show by precept and example that the ships
having it lose more through less serviceability
of their guns in rough weather than they gain
by presenting a smaller mark for the enemy's
guns. To imply that the low freeboard is a
blunder so obvious that only the grossest in
competent could be guilty of it is making criti-
cism ludicrous.
The fact is. with regard to all the sensational
charges now appearing in the press that they
have TO do with defects OF minor character
long ago recognized in the earlier ships and
corrected in subsequent models or with faults
due to the policy of Congress in its naval an
preparations. or with characteristics which are
elements of weakness or of strength according
TO the theory of construction adopted These
last are the main subjects of criticism but their
existence is not due to stupidity and incon,-