The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-05-22
WHY ouR NAVY DECLINES

WHY OUK NAVY DECLINES | It appears that the real trouble with our navy is an overdose of politics. Instead of proceeding with program carefully worked out by experts and to extend over a period of future years with adequate appropriation each year based on the naval needs and not on political reactions, the naval policy is altered, changed, interrupted and halted, ac- cording to entirely extraneous circumstances. It is no wonder that the result is disappoint- ing to the American people and is entirely below what could be attained even for the sums appropriated, if continuously available instead of internationally so.
 Just n6w there is general agreement that we are behind Great Britain in our ratio allowed by the Washington conference, and not so very far ahead of Japan. However, there Is nothing obligatory about our keep ing up with Great Britain. What we should consult instead is our own naval require ments and, within the limits of the ratio, we should govern our program accordingly. Con gress stands aghast at the estimate of $150, 900 needed to give us our desired cruiser and battleship strength. Yet if we need this sum in a lump. it is congress- own fault for having permitted the work to lapse so that the expense could not have been spread over number of years The fleet units have fallen into such disrepair, through lack of available funds, that the total cost of re- pairing will be many times greater than the cost of continuous maintenance would have been. Who is to blame for that. if not con gress? Congress had plenty of warning, too; has had it every session.
 Perhaps the American people will be still further amazed to discover that the British fleet is in superior condition and has more effective units on less money than has been spent on the American navy. The reason is that the British program has been continuous and the maintenance of the units uninter- rupted Two Or three years ago our navy was about equal to that of. Great Britain, but now the ratio is about 5-4-3, with Japan up to the full strength allowed by the Wash ington treaties. It may surprise many to learn that Great Britain, as well as the United States. is not up to the permitted strength and has no present intention of be- coming so Yet, in the past three years, Great Britain, while spending less money on her navy thaRswe, has added to her naval strength and has maintained her naval per sonnel at about seven thousand more men than we nave; but Great Britain is sixteen thousand men under the limit, and we are twenty-three thousand under the limit. The Japanese are fully manned
 To show that Great Britain has spent her money more efficiently and wisely than we' one may turn to the records and find that the British naval expenditures for 1921 were four hundred ana six million dollars against our four hlnarsd and twenty-six millions. In 1922 the British spent two hundred and eighty-five million against our two hundred and ninety eight million. In 1923 the British spent two hundred and fifty-fiye millions against our two hundred and ninety-seven mil lions. These figures include all naval expend- itures and the maintenance of civil depart ments of the navy. Thus, if it be true that the British naval strength has gained while ours has declined, it has not been because we have spent less money, but because we have spent it to less result, The situation is strong evidence that there is basis for the criticism often directed against our extrav- agant administrative habits in all functions Iof government If the British can do it bet ter on less money than we spend. there is something more the matter than the alleged lack of funds. It must be the spasmodic man. ner in which the funds, are appropriated and the inefficiency with which our naval affairs are administered
 It is believed, that the fault resides not within the pers6nnel of the navy proper, but within the civil and political ranks of the navy directorate The fault also is shared by congress for it's failure to reorganize the civil administration of the navy with view, to securing business and administrative eff ciency rather than political patronage. No amount of money is going to make up for lack of capacity among our naval directors, those civilians who owe their authority to political accident, and who have no specific fitness for their positions The people of the United States are spending enough money to have an adequate navy that fully measures up to the best. Why is it that we do not have such a navy? That is sub ject which congress may well give it's serious and sincere attention. S