New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-05-06
THE NAVY'S INEFFICIENCY
How Deep 1t Goes and What Are
Its Causes.
TO the Editor Of The Tribune.

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: Relating to the efficiency of the
United States Navy, what are we take as a
standard? Are we to be more efficient in all
departments than any other navy is, and, II so,
how are we going to find out our efficiency
relatively to that of other navies? Or must
we do the sensible thing and try to attain
100 per centum efficiency? Talk Of the kind
and number of vessels is essential only when
we refer all these to some unit. How much
money do we desire to put into our navy?
What percentage of our income? Deciding
that matter is our first step toward naval
policy. We can then decide on the number
Of battleshps. All other ships are relative
and depend on the number Of our fighting
units.
The cost of the upkeep Of the feet rests
with the navy yards-and right there is our
insurmountable problem, because ell but
three yards are superfuous, two on the At
lantiic coast and one on the Pacific. Smaller
stations are needed at the isthmus, at Ha-
waii and in the Philippine islands Right
here is where we are squandering money;
here is the "pork barrel" Of the navy,
standing shame to our patriotic citizens.
Mr.. Meyer proved himself great in that he
made an honest effort to eradicate this can
Ger on efficiency.
We cannot have an efficient navy, even
though our ships are the best planned and
the best built all of which they are not,
unless they are completed and in the line
of battle in the quickest, instead of the slow
est, time And what is the quickest time?
1t isn't three and a half years, when other
nations have completed ships Of the same
class in two years. Compare 1913 model
automobile with 1915 car, and you will see
the contrast between batteships OF the
United States navy and ships OF England,
Japan and Germany. This inefficiency on the
part of our building is stupendous, and the
comparison of automobiles brings it home
to us; only, of course, the contrast in ships
is greater because the change in ships is
greater.
So we have the building and upkeep Of
ships hopelessly inefficient, and, in spite Of
any letters to the contrary, there has been
no improvement and seemingly no real effort
at improvement made, as under the previous
administrations.
We now come TO the personnel. Here the
ineficiency is as great as in the materiel
This great defect lies right under the august
nose of the Secretary of the Navy, the ineffi-
cheney of the bureau system, the lack of SYM
pathy in and among the bureaus; in fact,
lack Of harmonious cooperation which is re-
aected throughout the entire navy and is
the chief cause Of the navy's inefficiency.
II takes a mightier pen than mine to de-
scribe the chaos in the Navy Department, but
can give a remedy. Do away with eevat-
ing bureau chiefs to the grade Of rear ad-
miral; make the bureau heads executives of
the General staff; create General staff and
do away with the departmental aids and the
General Board, and put big business man
is as Secretary Of the Navy.
Until something along this line is done in
the Navy Department we will have an ineifi-
cient and hopelessly inefficient navy.
II. C. c.
Atlantic City, N. j., May /, 1915.