The sun., 1919-04-03
"A NAVY SECOND TO NONE"
Efficiency ut Sea an Onset TO Delay
In Building Ships.

To THE EDITOR OF THE SuN-sir: !
fact I am a Republican. but my long
friendship for the navy and my inti-
mate association with many a naval
officer and sailor prompt me to dis
agree vigorously with III. d. B." He
finds fault with our 110-footers: does
he not know that they were Al sea
craft? Evidently he has not talked
with men who served on them between
New York and Halifax, or of the
stormy Irish coast, or Off Brest, or in
the Mediterranean. Their engines
failed at times. but the vessels them
selves stood any amount of sea.
As to what our navy could have con-
structed had II been driven as England
was. I leave II to those who know
what the navy did to Judge. III. ID. B."
must not forget that We did not need
battle cruisers-England had all that
were necessary. Nor did we need any
new battleships; our division added to
tho British fleet gave it an overwhelm-
ing superiority. We did need destroyers.
and have heard British officers at the
New York Yacht Club say what per-
feet godsend our destroyers were, and
every American officer who served In
Irish waters tells the same story.
III. d. b." questions indirectly our
efficiency. Has he not read Admiral
Belknap In the February Geographic
Dagdsinei DO not our skill and In
genuity and daring safety himr If not.
heaven help him!
We needed ships to get our army and
It's supplies abroad. We filled every
available yard with merchant ship work.
Every new yard was devoted to that
Job. The Shipping Board made some
sad plumbers. They boasted and talked
too much--possibly the board merely
gave way to a national trait-the news
papers may have gone the board one
better, and the board failed to reach
this boosted goal. But the navy had
nothing to do with this.
1t turned out and private yards turned
out the ships we acknowledgements, i'm
provised mine sweepers. yachts con-
verified into small cruisers; mine layers
were made OF old steamers and tugs and
menhaden craft. Has not III. d. b.
ever been down New York Bay? Did no
never cross the net at the Narrows, or
cross Gravesend Bay? He Is no doubt
right about the Eagles; they seem to
be failure. But the Eagles are but
very. very small part Of the navy prob
lem---negllgible in fact.
II is intensely disappointing to read
such a letter as III. D. BIS" Truly.
the navy made but few mistakes on blue
water. 1t did gigantic Job wonder
fully well. It produced men, ships. cleo
trio devices, bombs. submarine detecting
apparatus, signals and a mass Of other
necessary apparatus in quantities and In
perfection. Whatever petty errors were
made in the departTnent-and the small
est was the foolish secrecy when things
were old. secrecy still holding good
greatly to tho havy's Disadvantage
whatever petty errors were made In the
department. no error Of any Importance
was made on blue water.
Let III. D. B." read Cooper's intro
duction to his naval history. He grave!y
states that steam cannot succeed against
vessels propelled by sails. But II did.
So too the electric drive will ultimately
succeed. l do not suppose any naval
officer expected this method OF propul-
sion to succeed without showing few
defects Docs not III. d. B." know that
the British Hush" ships we're far from
wholly successful? Two. at least. were
converted into seaplane carriers. their
guns and turrets being removed. The
mystery ships were a clever trick; we
used few tricks.
Let III. D. b." remember that the
navy never claimed to be perfect. 1t
did its job we'll; 1t was always ready
It was always on the alert: 1t never
failed; 1t became a part of the British
navy in Great Britain and 1t was
wonderful addition 70 that navy. as Brit
ish officers admit,
II. ID. B.".will say am prejudiced'
Well. I am. I have known the American
navy intimately for forty years, and l
wish / had been 20 instead OF GO in
1918. I'd have been a sailor. as "H.
d. b." was. trust. II he was young
enough. GHERARpI DAVIS.
NEW YORK April .