The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1908-02-18
ADMIRAL Converse,s Report.

Admiral COnverse's Report.
Rear Admiral Converse's report treats
with candor and technical insight the ami
madversions of Henry Reuterdahl and
certain service journals upon the et-
hciency Of our battle ships, His eonclu-
sior appears to be that our ships arc in
ferior in no respect. save in numbers.
Faults they have had. but all have been
corrected or are in process of correction.
No new idea has been rejected that would
make for increased efficiency, and mo
ship has been built by as inferior 70 those
of any nation designed at the same time.
This being the case the American people
need have no fear that the feet will not
be able TO give a good account OF itself
m the unhappy event of war. We prefer
10 believe. of course, that the actual
state Of things is as here given. that our
navy is the equal OF any other navy ship
Tor ship and man for man. and that our
naval constructors have kept pace in
every respect with the progress Of ma
rine architecture. Certainly the opinion
of Rear Admiral Converse on these points
is entitled 20 great weight His report,
AT any rate. evidences the belief of our
naval constructors that they have done
AS well as those of any other nation.
Between the declaration of a layman that
our ships are unfit for war and the as
sertion of officers who Luild and sail the
ships and are expected 10 fight them that
they are perfectly fit. the man in the
street will be inclined To accept the YER
dict Of the officers.
r. naval critics, If they have any
IN left. will doubtless retort that
onverse report is the judgment Of IL
r. bureau officer upon hiss own work
hat of his acknowledgements, and
sht to be received with some skepti-
II will bQ remembered that one of
everest criticisms contained in the
rdahl article was directed toward
Ireau management of the navy, TO
was attributed responsibility for
4 defects in the ships The bureau
n Mr.. Reuterdahl charged. is inn
us to demands for reform. it kills
itlcism. for when criticism is acted
the bureaus are both judge and
iIut and almost invariably acquit
efendant Rear Admiral Converse
acquitted the defendant on prac-
every count but this one Doubt
was not asked his opinion on
ueau system. but it is, according
critics. tint worst defect in our
establishment Mr.. ReuterdahTs
was not written solely to point
hat he conceived 20 be defects I'm
lips, but to demonstrate the inn
lily &C naval efficiency under bu-
Management 1T is high time" he
that the navy itself De i'm po-
10 conduct its affairs efficiently
this it must have new system
nagement What answer have
val authorities 20 this-the most
Indictment OF all? If il be replied
e efficiency of the feet is the best
ence that the bureau management
nd criticism, the naval critics may
cited to respond that this is merely
the question our ships. they
Y, have been improved in spite
of bureau obstruction: and anyway. the
assumption that they are without serious
defect comes from the very men who
are responsible for blunders i'm construc-
tion. and naturally are unwilling to adj
NIT IT,
The Converse report therefore. does not
20 60 the bottom OF the cas-. against the
naval establishment. To what extent is
the bureau system responsible for the
mistakes admittedly made. and to what
extent have Improvements been forced
upon ltra-conservauve bureau officers?
Is the bureau system cumbersome. costly.
and impervious 70 improvements imply
ing that errors in construction have been
committed? These are some of the vital
questions raised by the Reuterdahl arti-
Gle. and, 50 far as we can see they re-
main unanswered