Evening star., 1942-03-11
Revompine the Navy

LII SlNlllE Adlll4I al GlllCOU 1AlllS
greater control of the Navy's war
operations, the President has taken
a step which may be expected to
result in more efficient prosecution
of the conflict.
AS a result of the latest reorgani-
cation, Admiral King, while continu-
ing as commander in chief, United
States Fleets also assumes the fUnc-
tiOnS and the responsibilities of the
chief Of naval operations. In otheE
words, there is no longer "a chief of
naval operations, although all of The
essential functions o. that Office will
continue to be exercised through the
person of the commander in CHEF
of the fleet.
That this should lead 20 more eff
cient operation Of the Navy in time
of war seems Self-eVident 1t has
long been recognized that harmony
of opinion on professional questions
between the chief of naval opera
tions and the commander in chief
of the fleet is essential to maximum
efficiency. There is no evidence OF
any lack of Cooperation or harmony
between Admiral King and Admiral
, Harold B. Stark, who has bee fe-
lieved of the post Of chief of naval
operations, yet IL seems clearly the
part OF wisdom to guard against the
development of any discard by merg-
ing the two functions in one indi-
vidual. TemperS and personalities
are apt to be severely strained by
the burdens Of war, particularly
when the going is rough, and it is
certainly in no wise reflection on
Admiral Stark to foreStall any pos
Sibility of friction which would be
detrimental to the service by giving
the commander in chief of the fleet
a degree of authority commensurate
with his responsibilities.
Under the reorganization, for ex-
ample, control of supply passes 20
Admiral King. He. may now assign
a unit of the fleet to a particular
mission without any concern as to
the availability of supplies, for he
will not have to rely on the volun-
tary cooperation ia this respect ca
some one who is not under his juriS-
diction. The responsibility would be
his; both for execution Of the mis-
sion and the maintenance of supply,
and that should make for greater
efficiency and better morale.
The change also is important from
a purely legaliStic standpoiht The
duties of the chief Of naval opera
tions are specifically defined by law.
This, conceivably, could be a harm
fully restrictive influence, since cir
cumStanceS might arise under which
certain moves by the chief of naval
operations would be desirable, but
which he would not be specifically
authorized by law to make, and he
would have to choose between vio-
lating the law and neglecting to take
steps which might be clearly deSir-
able If there is no chief of naval
operations, however, the desirable
steps might be taken without any
question of law violation arising. In
peacetime it would be difficult to
defend such procedure, but restraints
imposed by law in time of peace may
we'll lose their validity under the
stress of war.
1t should be noted that even with
this latest reorganization the COM
mander in chief still lacks control
of the chiefs of naval bureaus, COM
parable to the authority possessed by
the Chief of Staff of the Army, and
Congress might well give thought to
remedying this condition. Wholly
aside from difficulties which might
arise from personality clashes or
differences of professional opinion,
the situation is undesirable from a
standpoint of efficient administra-
ton. For example, the appropriation
for the Bureau of Ordnance is Spe-
cifically earmarked-so much for
torpedoeS, so much for shells etc.
Yet, although situation might arise
under war conditions in which there
would be need for more torpedoeS
and fewer shells than anticipated,
neither Admiral King nor the chief
of the Bureau Of Ordnance could
legally make the adjustment with
out express authorization of Con-
..gress. 1t is difficult to see why the
commander in chief of the fleet, if
he is to be held fully responsible
for the successful direction of the
Navy, should be subject to any such
restraints in time of war.
japanese Atrocities