Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-05-02
GARDNER WRITES TAFT
IN REPLY TO DANIELS
Massachusetts Representative. In
Letter to Former President, Dis.
cpsses Preparedness of Navy.
FIGURES MUCH MISLEADING
Previous Assertions Concerning Con-
dition Of Fighting Force, Member
Of Congress Says, Are Unanswered.
Strength Inadequate for Defense.

WASHINGTON. May IA letter
addressed to former President Taft was
made public here yesterday BY Repre-
sentative A. p. Gardner, of Massac :
setts. 1t was written by Representative
Gardner In reply to Secretary Daniel 8
recent communication TO President Gar
field, of Williams College. dealing with
the preparedness OF the navy, and is
as follows;
Washington, d. c.. April 90. 1915.
Hon. William H. Taft, New Haven
Conn:
My Dear Professor Taft have
received your telegram of April %
You ask me to comment on the views
of Secretary Of the Navy Daniels. as
published in the morning papers of
April 26.
ut appears that President Garfield
of Williams College, recently wrote to
Mr.. Daniels asking for an authorita-
tive statement. 20 that he might he In
a position to meet the statements
made by Representative Gardner. OF
Massachusetts,, alleging that the United
States Is at present pnprepared for
military emergencies.'
III president Garfield, OF Williams
was looking for an answer to my as
seFtiens. he was disappointed. In the
course Of his very long letter, the
secretary did not undertake 10 meet
the assertions which l have made. al
though he successfully met a good
many assertions which did not make
assertions. by the way. which no one
outside a lunatlc asylum would be
likely to make.
For instance. the secretary triumph
antly asserts and overwhelmingly
proves that the American navy is
larger and more abundantiy equipped
than ever before. Inasmuoh as the
American navy has not been at war
for seventeen years. and as the scrap
heap is almost unknown in our mill
tary system. it did not take two news
paper columns TO prove that our navy
and It's equipment must continue to in
crease so long Congress continues
to appropriate for them.
II assume that President GARFIELD
like the rest of u.s. would have been
9lad to be told how our navy compares
In size and strength with foreign
navies. doubt very much whether
lie takes a consuming interest in
comparison between our navy as II Is
under President Wilson and our navy
aa II was under President Taft, or
even under President Roosevelt-yet
that 10 all the comparison which was
Nouchsafed In tho secretary's letter.
While he was about It, by the way,
don't you think that Mr.. Daniels
might perhaps. have put that compar ri
son in a little clearer light? You will
observe that in all matters he com
pares the navy under the first two
years lof President Wilson'S adminis-
tration with the navy under the last
two years OF your administration.
Perhaps ought not to criticize a Cab
met officer. but TO an ordinary mud
lark Congressman like myself, Il really
seems as II the comparison might have
peen a little less misleading IL the
secretary had pointed out the fact that
in the last two years of your admin
istration the purse strings were held
by Democratic House of Representa-
tlves
IEFERIoRIFY, He SAYS,
CONSTANTLY ON INCREASE
Perhaps President Garfield might
also have been interested to learn
whether or not our naval experts think
our navy sufficient for our defense To
the average sordid mind like my own
that really seems moro important
question than whether our present de-
plorable condition is the fault Of Mr.
Meyer or Mr.. Daniels. or the Archanecl
Gabriel. Yet l can find no word in the
secretary's letter which reveals the
fact that his official council OF advisers.
the General Board OF the Navy, has
solemnly warned him that our lack OF
naval policy has placed us In POSI-
ten OF inferority TO foreign nations,
and that that inferiority Ia continually
on the increase.
eff President Garfield is like the rest
of US. he probably will be glad TO learn
whether or not our fighting ships NEE.
medern conditions TO speed. whether
or not our aircraft have kept pace with
the improvements In the air fleets OF
the rest OF the world. and whether or
not our mines. torpedoes and ammuni-
tion are sufficient in the Judgment of
the ordnance officers Of the navy
think you Will agree with me that
definite statement on these points
would be more profitable than a dis
oussion as to whether 1t Is a Repuhli-
can administration or a Democratic adj
ministration that Is most to blame for
the fact that we are SO deplorably be-
hind the times. Yet, unless am very
much mistaken, the secretary says not
one word about the all-import3nt cues
ton % the speed, or rather lack of
speed, OF ol,' fighting ships. He tells
US that the situation as to mines and
terpedoes and ammunition has vastly
improved, which ia, of course, the case,
but he denies US definite figures as
likely to betray important naval
secrets.
The question OF our readiness for
war with an efficient enemy is worth
discussing at some length. The secre-
tary's mere assertion that our ships
were In position to make brave
showing against the Mexican navy and
the southwest Wild at Vera Cruz Will
not stand for one moment against the
positive views as to our unreadiness
'or war expressed by, Commander Var
nell and Admiral Fiske. chief of opera
tiens Of the fleet.