The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-12-22

iOt1 O0Cun0u 10 m8ko pubic tho Original
report Of the General Boafd Of the navy
containing recommendations with re-
spect to = navy building programme
Instead, the Secretary made public .
report which the board subsequently sub
mitted under express directions from
the Secretary. The original m was
in accordance with the annual custom
Of the board. II set forth what the
naval experts believed to be the neces-
sary goal Of M naval building policy.
founded on a consideration Of the policies
OF other nations OF the world. and laid
down 9 detailed building programme
Tho subsequent report was made in
response to \ written order from the
Secretary calling for recommendations
within the limits Of Z total expenditure,
in I'VE years time. Of $500. 600. 900 at an
approximate rate OF 500. 600. 900 q year.
The arst report Of the board was
made In July: h second In October.
The hrst has never seen the light Of
day. Secretary Daniels refuses nov to
make II public. He II understood to
have died II away under lock and key.
Fer q Navy to E0ual Drttain's.
II was quite different from the one
91ven out tonight II wa based on
the proposition that by 1925 the navy
of the United States should be the equal
of any in the world. not excepting
Great Britain's- To that end. II 10 under
stood. the board proposed the construc.
tlou between 1917 and 1925 OF thirty.
six frst line d~readnoushts at q rate.
beginning in 1917. Of four drcadnoughts
For 1877 the amount Of money which
tAh original report proposed should be
spent 70 understood to have been ap-
peoximately $500, ooc. 900. as against the
3ioe. ooo. 900 recommended to be spent
during the same year under the limita-
lions nxed BY the Secretary.
In his own annual report Secretary
Daniels emphasizes the fact that
whereas he proposed the expenditure Of
eSo3.%s2.31+. In i've Ear time the Gem
erai Board's report called for $780,.
sfs.ooo. Thfs apparently was cited by
the Secretary by way Of making II APP
pear that he has taken q most advanced
stand on the naval programme.
What Secretary Daniels failed to ex.
plain 10 the fact. nov disclosed. that the
boards report to which he refers Is not
h original report. but one submitted
in response to an order from him limit
ing the expenditures to $500. 900. 900 In
I'VE years.
Heretofore Secretary Daniels has nj.
way published the regular report OF the
General Board along with his own. In.
quiry at the Navy Department developed
the fact that the board regards It's July
report as Its regular one. not the re-
port submitted under orders from Sec
rotary Daniels In October.
Except for the statement that no does
not believe there is any necessity for
publishing the original document, Sec
rotary Daniels has not volunteered any
. for the secrecy.
Rate Of Expendi2are.
Despite tho fact that the second re-
povt Of the board approximates the total
nxed by Mr.. Daniels. II differs materially
from Secretary Dsnieis's PROPOSALS re.
garding the rate Of expenditure. Where
A Secretary Daniels In the plan adopted
by President Wilson al the Adminissra.
TONS programme proposes to make the
1877 expenditures considerably below
those for the succeeding years. the Gen.
era Board Is Of the opinion that because
Of the backwardness Of the American
navy In the present critical times the
larger sums should b expended at tho
outset n that there should be scaling
down al h vafious units are added
to the feet.
Moreover. whereas the total OF $685.
$4,000 which the General Board would
spend In Ave years time would 70 ex-
clustvely- to new ships. SIS. 500, 900 Of Mr..
Daniels's total Of $500. O0O. 600 would be
used for the completion OF ships already
authorized.
Under Secretary Daniels's plan there
would be expended $4,000. 900 In 1917
ON new ships. aviation and ammunition
reserve. 1t being generally understood
thht the SarrQtarv droW hin 49,
with one eye on the depleted condition
Of the Federal Treasury. The General
Board under the limitations imposed by
the Secretary proposed an expenditure
for the same purpose In 1917 OF $s7.-
0vO. 900.
With regard to the differences be-
tween his plan n tho restricted pro-
grAmme Of the General Board-the orig
inal report of the board not being men,
ttoned-Mr. Daniels In his annual report
oaid:
my recommendation OF a five year
programme embraces the same number
~ proposed by the General Board in the
distribution II made in the fve year
pFogramme OF d~readnoughts. battle
cruisers. scouts and destroyers.
rsCommend fifteen fleet submarines whers
the General Board recommends nine
and ] recommend eighty-ivs coast sub.
marines as against fifty-etght recon
mended by the General Board.
"For additional reserve ammunition
my recommendation is $4,000 900
ll.000.0 900, They recommend something
more for other craft, My total for tho
nve years Is $500. 4s2.2l4. The Genera
slight difference for the i've years
though the boards recommendation fol