Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-05-02
cannot be much improved BY any other

/
Dreadnought cruisers. built and build
Ing. while Gcrlnanys vessels OF the
| Same description numbered twenty
eight, and ours numbered only twelve.
Most OF our battleships, unfortunate
ly, arc old-fashioned pre-Dread-
thoughts.
MY authority for these statements
Is the bulletin published by the United
States Office of Naval Intelligence. en-
| titled Warship Tonnage Of the Prin-
cipal Naval Powers July /. 1914.
Are we strong enough: 1t is the
opinion OF those best able to judge
That our navy is totally inadequate for
our defense. AS you know very well,
the general board off the navy is to-
day, and always has been. composed OF
! the very best naval officers In the SER
! vice. Ever since 1909 the general
! board has declared that we must have
| forty-eisht battleships less than TWEEN
| ~ years old. I'm order to make us safe
| against the navy of Germany or any
other nation except Great Britain. The
general board does not pretend that
| weight battleships would be suf-
| hcient to protect us against England's
| mighty navy. In addition, the general
board tells us that we must have 1872
destroyers. as we'll as other ships i'm
| certain proportions. Instead Of forty
eight battleships and 1872 destroyers
| under twenty years old We have at
present built and building. only thirty
seven battleships and sixty eight de-
! stroyers. IL Is true that this year
| have authorized the constructor Of two
more battleships and six more de-
stroyers. II is also true that in 1919,
when these new battleships viii be
ready. the battleship Iowa will have
long passed the twenty-year mark,
and the battleships. kearsarge, Ken
lucky and Alabama will be nineteen
| years old. My authorities for these
facts are the reports of the general
board OF the navy for 1sl3-14 and
certain document. copy of which has
! been refused me. known as No. 42O-2
of October II. 1913. This document
was in the Office of Admiral Dewey
| three months ago.
| bmarines-As TO submarines, Adj
| miral Nreeland testified that we need
100 submarines for harbor defense
| alone. II you reckon the IA. which
is al the bottom of the sea. and If you
reckon all the submarines which are in
the scrap heap and those which ought
to be In the scrap head. and IL you
| reckon all the submarines which are
building. you will find that we have
just hfty-nine; a sorry lot they are,
! many OF them. at least. II is true that
Congress overruled Secretary Daniels's
recommendation this year and followed
| the recommendation of the general
board. 30 that Instead of getting nine
now submarines. we shall have cigh-
teen. / am afraid that / took an un-
holy satisfaction In our victory.
ONLY ONE SUBMARINE
REPORTED FIT FoR USE
Speaking OF submarines and the
readiness OF The navy for war. did you
notice the evidence OF Commander
| Sterling. chief Of the Atlantic sub
! marine flotilla. before the naval COM
| inittee last December? 1t appears that
| early last November Admiral Fletcher
ordered A general mobilization of the
Atlantic Fleet. The rendezvous was in
! Hampton Roads. The newspapers stat
/ ed that only one submarine out of sew
enteen In the Atlantic Fleet could dive.
{ Congressman Roberts, of the Naval AZ
fairs Committee. refused to be quoted
and kept up a rumpus until Commander
| Sterling was summoned The COM
mandcr explained that five of the sub
marines were at tho Panama Canal and
| ought not TO be reckoned, which
seemed reasonable. lie then went on
TO testify that for one reason or an
/ other the bulk of the rest of them could
not be mobilzed. and tho ultimate re-
suit was described by Commander Ster-
! ling in the following language: so
when we got down there the admiral
wanted TO know what we could do.
! told him we had then only one SUBJ
marine that l thought could efficiently
/ take part In the maneuvers at sea OF
! the coast
"Is the navy ready to meet a real
enemy? One of the most significant
statements which ] have called again
and again to the attention of the
I powers that be is Admiral Fiske's tes-
timony that II would take Ave years
/ TO get the United States Navy into con-
dition to fight an efficient foreign foe
! 1t was just like blum old Fiske TO blurt
out the uncompromising truth. I don't
| think the gentlemen from the Navy
J Department cared much for a state
ment which fitted in so i'll with the
sterilized testimony so fashionable at
| the present time.
! at about the same time Assistant
Secretary Of the Navy Roosevelt got
out of step when he testified that it
would take from three months to a
F., year to Put into fighting trim the 1o1
vessels which Secretary Daniels so
euphemistically describes as In re-
serve or in ordinary or 'uncommis-
stoned BY the way, we are to count
i on these l01 ships In case Of war. or,
8" Secretary Daniels tells President
Garfield.
If by any chance. after reading this
communication, you still continue to
think that the navy is prepared for
| war. commend to you Admiral
Fletcher's letter, dated January IA,
| 1915. IT is addressed to the Committee
on Naval Affairs of the House of Rep
resentatives. In II the admiral asks
| leave to correct some OF his testimony
He explains that, much to his surprise,
he has discovered an alarming short
age of officers and men in his own
! fleet. 1t appears that In the twenty
! one battleships under his command In
vestigation has discovered a shortage
of 5.219 men and 400 officers. Rather
! an unpleasant discovery for an admiral
to make in the fleet under his command,
I should think. 1t must have been espe-
cially disconcerting, In view of the
pa cans which had greeted him five weeks
earlier, when he had stated his belief
NlzSzlzzzNNANNyXNNNNSszzzzzkEAZ