New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-05-19
Josephus TO the Scrap Heap.

The House Committee on Naval Affairs
has repudiated Secretary Daniels and his
five-year building programme. In so far
as this vote-13 to in the committee
represents a rebukc to the most incom-
petent Secretary the navy ever had, the
country will rejoice at it.
/ The House committee showed last year
commendabe zeal for the reorganization
of the navy. 1t wanted to provide for
EXPERT military control and created Blu
reau of Operations, intended to discharge
the functions of a naval general staff.
Secretary Daniels intrigued against this
reform. The Bureau of Operations prof.
ect was defeated in the House on a point
of order. restored in the Senate and finally
slaughtered, at Mr. Daniels's solicitation.
in conference committee.
1t is greatly to the credit Of the House
committee that it was very unwilling to
accept the Secretary's leadership last year.
1t is equally to its credit that it openly
rejects his leadership now. No one can
any longer follow Mr.. Daniels who sin
cerely desires TO make the navy an efficient
first line of defence. Mr.. Daniels has
neither the intelligence nor the will TO re-
create the navy. The sooner the two
houses of Congress recognize that fact and
begin to act on it the sooner we shall get
a real start toward the reorganization Of
the navy on a sound, modern basis.
The recommendations Of the majority OF
the committee are not ideal. Taken as
part of a continuing programme, they
might be criticised as being i'll balanced.
They make no provision for battleships;
and the experience of the European war
has not altered the conclusion that the bat
tleship is still the principal reliance Of all
navies.
But this years authorizations are not
a part of a continuing programme, the
committee having cast aside Mr.. Damelss
five-year building project. Taken on their
own merits as a one-year emergency con-
tribution to the navy's strength, they are
undeniably an improvement on Mr.. Dan
iels's first year recommendations.
The committee provides for five battle
cruisers to the Secretary's two, four scout
cruisers to his three, ten destroyers to his
fifteen. twenty submarines to his thirty,
and three auxiiaries to his one. The secre-
tary recommended two battleships and the
committee recommends none.
The greatest immediate need of the feet
is cruisers. Our battleships are far out OF
proportion in numbers to our scouts.
Therefore it may be wise to concentrate
for one year, at least, on construction fer
scouting purposes. Five batte-cruisers
and four scout cruisers would be Of inn
mense value in rounding out our present
fleet.
We do not need TO make a splurge in
submarines. In our coast defence prob
lem the submarine can play only a sub
sidary and local part, since if we cannot
defend our enormous coast line with fight
ing ships we cannot hope TO defend 1t
through submarine snipiEg.
We should have been glad to see two
battleships included in the committees
recommendations. But apart from that
deficiency. they are to be warmly APP
proved They break the shackles of
vicious control of our sea policy by mud
ding Secretary in whom even his own
party associates in Congress have now lost
faith.