New-York tribune., 1910-02-05
CAPPS'S TESTIMONY
CRITICISM OF LINE,
Makes Charges Of Incompe
tencc and Extravaganza.
TFrom The Tribune Bureau. J

Washington, Fob. 4-Chief Constructor
Capps. before the House Committee on
Naval Affairs. submitted testimony wElch
on its face indicated grave incompetence
on the part of the line officers charseo
With staff duties. He submitted nsuleS
10 show that the estimates on repair "orh
made by line officers were seriously IN
accurate, and he sought to estabilsh the
proposition that the use of line officers 1or
such work was eXtravagant because OF Tue
greater number required.
Taking up the memorandum prepared loI
Secretary Meyer by Chief Engineer Cone,
the chief constructor cited the case of re-
pairs 10 the West Virginia, which the CHIEF
engineer alleged to have cost S0,SJo, while
Identical work on the Tennessee cost S,5eA
Mr.. Capps testified that S0350 was the es-
innate made by line officer, but That the
actual cost of the work as performed by
the constructors was $3.50. Throughout
the statement Of Mr.. Cone Mr.. Capps found
similar discrepancies.
The chief constructor argued that the
ultimate and proper goal of every line
officer was command afoat, and therefore
1t was unreasonable TO expect the highest
degree of efficiency in construction and re-
pair work from line officers. He main
tained that such work could reasonably be
expected only from those staff officers who
had chosen mechanics as the profession
for which they felt themselves peculiarly
fitted. He further maintained that the
short tenure of line officers in command
OF navy yards initiated against their eff
cheney, saying:
II is MY earnest belief that the greatest
efficiency in mechanical work at docky ards
cannot be attained when the commandant
or captain of the yard is the de facto
manager and my reason, in brief is TINS;
The commandant and the captain of the
yard are officers of the line: they will
have reached the grade of commander or
captain or admiral before being assigned
grades in which the duty most in line with
their profession, the duty which will en-
able them to attain the goal for which
they have been working ever since they
entered the service, is not ashore, but
afloat. They may be, and undoubtedly
are, in majority of instances men or the
highest capacity, finest training and large
experience in their own particular pro-
fession; but their duty at navy yards. If
we we may ma Judge by me psstEand the psst -
is limited. and they are almost neceS-
sarily simply biding their time until an ex-
Cellent opportunity arises TO command a
vessel or a division of a feet. Ny reason
for this belief is that the line officer who
takes special pride in his profession would
10 be on shore in any capacity, and this
belief is also based upon my personal
knowledge of officers of the line of The
navy and by the actual record Of service
at navy yards of officers who have served
in the capacity Of conmandants and cap
tafns of the yard.
MANY OFFICERS AT YARDS.
During the six years and more that 1
have been chief constructor of the navy,
there have been at the navy yard. Ports
seven captains of the yard: at the navy
yard. Boston. Mass, five commandants and
seven captains of the yard: at the navy
yard. New York. four conmandsnts and
six captains Of the yard; at the navy yard,
Philadelphia. FIVE commandants and eight
captains of the yard; at the navy yard.
Norfolk, four commandantS and four cap
tains of the yard; at the navy yard. Mare
Island, three COmmandants and five cap
talns Of the, yard; at the navy yard.
Bremerton, three commandants and four
cap7aiRs of the yard In other words. in
little more than six wears. in the seven
principal navy yards Of this country there
have been twenty-nine commandants and
forty-one captains Of the yard
Breyity I'm service Of that character, II II
Is confined 80 the general military ad-
ministEation of the yard. may not be very
detrimental, but brevity Of service. when
of & large industrial establishment, with
thousands Of civilians under your control.
must necessarily decrease efficiency.
PREFERS NEWBERRY SYSTEM
In reply to a question from the chairman
quires A greater number Of officers than
did the Newberry system. Chief Con-
structor capps said:
The present organize ton must neces-
sarily require more officers than the
ganiZation recently existing. because a
very large part of the duties formerly per
formed by the naval constructors are now
performed by another department. Per
hapS the best answer I could give to the
question would be TO take one of the navy
yards whose performance of work under
the Newberry scheme has been referred
TO as very satisfactory. I refer to the
navy yard at Norfolk
The officers in the manufacturing de-
partment prior to July Z, 1909. were a total
OF sixteen. On January J, 1910. the total
force was twenty-five in number. They
had formerly been performed by the six
teen.
It is undoubtedly true that greater eff
cheney would have been obtained under the
Newberry system by having a few Of
ficerS for strictly engineering duty. but a
very large part Of the duty now performed
in the engineering department of that yard
is duty for which the constructor was not
only trained but duty which he had actual
" been performing for many years with
entire SatisfacTi while the officers who
are performing that duty arc, in some
duty: and it is reported that the officer
who is now assigned to the charge of all
the electrical work under the engineering
officer is A member of the same class
a the junior assistant naval constructor.
and / am informed. one without any pre-
vions electrical engineering experience
whatever other than that received at the
Naval Academy and in the duty which
he may have performed aboard snip since
that time.