New-York tribune., 1922-07-02

ar rCeglufc % face urflfasaht laSis III
arc others. part cularly since these
facts DO not reject the least discredlt
unon our arms. But they do reflect
rron our organization, which is obso-
l,te. Ivon 30. tho reflection is not
uoon the country. for under President
Roosevelt this organization was re-
formed. The reflection is entirely
rnon tho nan who discarded those re-
forms and reverted 20 tho obsolete
system. and that man is tho author of
"Jur Navy az War"
Likelihood OF More Wars
Brings Answer TO Daniels
lf we could be- certain that our navy
would never again be called upon TO 90
e., war $50 could, perhaps. allow Mr.
Tan.cls's m.srcpresontat.o to 20 un-
challenged, although the ineficiency
- which ne must bear the blame
cost rs and our allies thousands Of
lives. Bat we have no assurance that
there Wiz be- no more wars.
Nr. Dancis's book creates the i'm
preston that all was wei in his ad-
r.nis;lation Of the Navy Department,
and as long az such an idea persists
reform IS impossible ard future war
would fni us making the same costly
, stakes 20 be paid for in tho blood
e.. our sons. The price is much too
lrh 90 pay TO protect the name Of
any man.
lt is not possible TO rainsay that
Nr. Daniels is very clever. Il may
o.cn be that he has succeeded in de-
cDvinr himself when he says;
Tho sinking of the Lusitaria. May
r. 1918. was followed by such naval
activity as bad never been seen be-
fore. cxcept ln the midst Of hostili-
fcs.'
r. is 20 be noted that NJ. Daniels
d.cs not assent ,hat he personally be-
c.n TO prepare The navy fer war at
t.a, time: hc could rot tru;hful.y say
f. g., did nothing 20 prepare us for
,ar. Nevertheless he chooses form
of expression that would certainly
create such an impression in the mind
of an ill-informcl person. On the
same page page I'D Mr. Daniels con-
tuuos;
Admiral Bcr,on. bureau chiefs.
commanders and officials. devoted
o.ory energy % preparing the feet
for war Abolition Of The cumber-
ono svs'cm cf naval aids brought
the bureau chir's in closer touch
with tic Secretary There was no
longer an division ~ authority
..l responsibility. and we could set
UIGcf action on this basis we built
.n departmental organization so
efficient that 20 change was found
necessary during Che entire war
fcriod."
Eyrn tho most ingenious intcrpreta-
ton could scarcely justify n single
|. statement r the above quotation. The
picture as whole is absolutely false
1etus take UP thc statements one It q
t~
U.i Admiral Benson devote every
ccrry % preparing the feet for war
Hc himself stated under cath a. fol
lows. in his testimony before the spe-
cal committee Of the Senate Naval
Committee:
The Chairman-You 90 net recall
especially advising the Secretary TO
prepare for war;
Adm.ra, Bcrson--No; I do not.
The Chairman A. any time?
Admiral Benson No; I do not.
The Official adviser Of the Secretary
the chief of naval operations. DID not
even advise the Secretary 20 prepare
for war! Perhaps it was unnecessary;
perhaps the Secretary spoke first. Let
Us see:
The Chalrmaa--In any event could
you have prepared the navy for war
without the consent Of the Secretary
OF the Navy
Admiral Dcnson-No, sir.
The Chairman--I have asked you
what advice you gave 70 the Seere-
tary about preparing the navy for
war. Did the Secretary ever give
you any definite instructions with
regard 20 active preparation for war,
in regard 10 personnel, material or
organization, PRIOR 70 TIE declaration
Of war
Admiral Benson-Not as n definite
preparation for war; do not think
he did. can not recollect his hav-
ing done so.
Bu. the following dialogue disposei
of the whole matter once and for all
The Chairman Would you say
that the navy was In all respects
prepared FOR war in April. 1917?
Admiral Benson-lt was not.
The Chairman - Would you say
that the statement in the Secre-
tary's annual report that the navy
vas from stem 70 stern ready for
Go IN April. 1917. was iustifedI