Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Senate on this subject seemed to be, that one believed the navy ought to be kept upon a quasi war establishment; and the other, in peace and not expecting war, believed it ought to be on a peace establishment;-not cut down below that, but left liberally for peace.

"During the administration of the younger Adams, there was a peace establishment of the navy; and was it not then perfectly efficient and prosperous for all peace purposes? Yet the average expenditure then was only from three to four millions. It was so under General Jackson. Under Mr. Adams, piracy was extirpated in the West Indies. Under his successor, the Malays in the farthest India were chastised; and a semi-banditti broken up at the Falkland Islands. It was not till 1836 37 that a large increase commenced. But why? Because there was an overflowing treasury. We were embarrassed with money, rather than for money. An exploring expedition was then decided upon. But even with that expedition -so noble and glorious in some respects-six millions and a fraction were the whole expenses. But why should it now at once be raised to eight and a half millions?"

The British have a peace as well as a war establishment for their navy; and the former was usually about one-third of the latter. We have no naval peace establishment. It is all on the war footing, and is now (1855) nearly double the expense of what it was in the war with Great Britain. A perpetual war establishment, when there is no war. This is an anomaly which no other country presents, and which no country can stand, and arises from the act of 1806, which authorizes the President" to keep in actual service, in time of peace, so many of the frigates and other armed public vessels of the United States as in his judgment the nature of the service might require, and to cause the residue thereof to be laid up in ordinary in convenient ports." This is the discretion which the act of 1806 gives to the President-unlimited so far as that clause goes; but limited by two subsequent clauses limiting the number of officers to be employed to 94, and the whole number of seamen and boys to 925; and placing the unemployed officers on half pay without rations—a degree of reduction which made them anxious to be at sea instead of remaining unemployed at home. Under Mr. Jefferson, then, the act of 1806 made a naval peace establishment; but doing away all the limitations of that act, and leaving nothing of it in force but the presidential discretion to employ as many

vessels as the service might require, the whole navy is thrown into the hands of the President: and the manner in which he might exercise that discretion might depend entirely upon the view which he would take of the naval policy which ought to be pursued-whether great fleets for offence, or cruisers for defence. All the limita tions of the act of 1806 have been thrown down-even the limitation to half pay; and unemployed pay has been placed so high as to make it an object with officers to be unemployed. Mr. Reuel Williams, of Maine, exposed this solecism in a few pertinent remarks. He said:

"Half of the navy officers are now ashore, and there can be no necessity for such a number of officers as to admit of half being at sea, and the other half on land. Such was not the case heretofore. It was in 1835 that such increase of shore pay was made, as caused it to be the interest of the officers to be off duty. The only cure for this evil was, either to reduce the pay when off duty, or to limit the time of relaxation, and to adjust the number to the actual requirements of the service."

The vote was taken upon the increase proposed by the Secretary of the Navy, and recommended by the President, and it was carried by one vote-the yeas and nays being well defined by the party line.

"YEAS-Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Berrien, Choate, Clayton, Conrad, Crittenden, Evans, Graham, Henderson, Huntington, Kerr, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Porter, Preston, Rives, Simmons, Tallmadge, and Woodbridge-23."

"NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Bagby, Benton, Buchanan, Crafts, Cuthbert, Fulton, King, Linn, McRoberts, Sevier, Smith of Connecticut, Smith of Indiana, Sturgeon, Tappan, Walker, White, Wilcox, Williams, Woodbury, Wright and Young-22"

Mr. Benton spoke chiefly to the necessity of having a naval policy-a policy which would determine what was to be relied on-a great navy for offence, or a moderate one for defence; and a peace establishment in time of peace, or a war establishment in peace as well as war. Some extracts from his speech are given in the next chapter.

CHAPTER CVIII.

men, of all grades, in the service in 1841, was a little over eight thousand; the total cost about six millions of dollars-being double the amount and cost of the proposed peace establishment of the United States in the year 1822,

EXPENSES OF THE NAVY: MR. BENTON'S SPEECH: and nearly double the actual establishment

EXTRACTS.

I PROPOSE to recall to the recollection of the Senate the attempt which was made in 1822being seven years after the war-to limit and fix a naval peace establishment; and to fix it at about one-fourth of what is now proposed, and that that establishment was rejected because it was too large. Going upon the plan of Mr. Jefferson's act of 1806, it took the number of men and officers for the limitation, discouraged absence on shore by reducing the pay one-half and withholding rations; collected timber for future building of vessels; and directed all to remain in port which the public service did not require to go abroad. It provided for one rearadmiral; five commodores; twenty-five captains; thirty masters commandant; one hundred and ninety lieutenants; four hundred midshipmen; thirty-five surgeons; forty-five surgeon's mates: six chaplains; forty pursers; and three thousand five hundred men and boys -in all a little over four thousand men. Yet Congress refused to adopt this number. This shows what Congress then thought of the size of a naval peace establishment. Mr. B. was contemporary with that bill-supported it knows the reason why it was rejected-and that was, because Congress would not sanction so large an establishment. To this decision there was a close adherence for many years. In the year 1833-eleven years after that time, and when the present senator from New Hampshire [Mr. WOODBURY] was Secretary of the Navy, the naval establishment was but little above the bill of 1822. It was about five thousand men, and cost about four millions of dollars, and was proposed by that Secretary to be kept at about that size. Here Mr. B. read several extracts from Mr. Woodbury's report of 1833-the last which he made as Secretary of the Navy-which verified these statements. Mr. B. then looked to the naval establishment on the 1st of January, 1841, and showed that the establishment had largely increased since Mr. Woodbury's report, and was far beyond any calculation in 1822. The total number of

of 1833. Mr. B. then showed the additions made by executive authority in 1841, and that the number of men was carried up to upwards of eleven thousand, and the expense for 1842 was to exceed eight millions of dollars! This (he said) was considered an excessive increase; and the design now was to correct it, and carry things back to what they were a year before. This was the design; and this, so far from being destructive to the navy, was doing far more for it than its most ardent friends proposed or hoped for a few years before.

Mr. B. here exhibited a table showing the actual state of the navy, in point of numbers, at the commencement of the years 1841 and 1842; and showed that the increase in one year was nearly as great as it had been in the previous twenty years; and that its totality at the latter of these periods was between eleven and twelve thousand men, all told. This is what the present administration has done in one year

the first year of its existence: and it is only the commencement of their plan―the first step in a long succession of long steps. The further increases, still contemplated were great, and were officially made known to the Congress, and the estimates increased accordingly. To say nothing of what was in the Senate in its executive capacity, Mr. B. would read a clause from the report of the Senate's Committee on Naval Affairs, which showed the number of vessels which the Secretary of the Navy proposed to have in commission, and the consequent vast increase of men and money which would be required. (The following is the extract from Mr. Bayard's report):

of

"The second section of the act of Congress of the 21st April, 1806, expressly authorizes the President 'to keep in actual service, in time lic armed vessels of the United States, as in his peace, so many of the frigates and other pubjudgment the nature of the service may require.' In the exercise of this discretion, the committee are informed by the Secretary of the Navy Mediterranean, consisting of two ships of the that he proposes to employ a squadron in the line, four frigates, and four sloops and brigsin all, ten vessels; another squadron on the

nean is as free from danger to-day as is the Chesapeake Bay; and yet our Secretary proposes to send two ships-of-the-line, four frigates, and four sloops to that safe sea, to keep holiday there for three years. Another squad

Brazil station, consisting, also, of two ships-of the-line, four frigates, and four sloops and brigs; which two squadrons will be made from time to time to exchange their stations, and thus to traverse the intermediate portion of the Atlantic. He proposes, further, to employ a squadron in the Pacific, consisting of one ship-of-the-ron of the same magnitude is to go to Brazil, line, two frigates, and four sloops; and a simi- where a frigate and a sloop would be the extent lar squadron of one ship of the line, two frigates, and four sloops in the East Indies; which that any emergency could require, and more squadrons, in like manner, exchanging from time than has ever been required yet. The same of to time their stations, will traverse the inter- the Pacific Ocean, where Porter sailed in trimediate portion of the Pacific, giving counte- umph during the war with one little frigate; and nance and protection to the whale fishery in that ocean. He proposes, further, to employ a a squadron to the East Indies, where no power fifth squadron, to be called the home squadron, has any navy, and where our sloops and brigs consisting of one ship-of-the-line, three frigates, would dominate without impediment. and three sloops, which, besides the duties fifty-four men-of-war! Seven ships-of-the-line, which its name indicates, will have devolved sixteen frigates, twenty-three sloops and brigs, upon it the duties of the West India squacon, whose cruising ground extended to the mouth and eight steamers. And all this under Jefferof the Amazon, and as far as the 30th degree of son's act of 1806, when there was not a ship-ofwest longitude from London. He proposes, ad-the-line, nor a large frigate, nor twenty vessels ditionally, to employ on the African coast one frigate and four sloops and brigs-in all, five of all sorts, and part of them to remain in port vessels; four steamers in the Gulf of Mexico, only the number going forth that would reand four steamers on the lakes. There will thus be in commission seven ships-of-the-line, sixteen frigates, twenty-three sloops and brigs, and eight steamers-in all, fifty-four vessels."

This is the report of the committee. This is what we are further to expect. Five great squadrons, headed by ships of the line; and one of them that famous home squadron hatched into existence at the extra session one year ago, and which is the ridicule of all except those who live at home upon it, enjoying the emoluments of service without any service to perform.

[ocr errors]

In all

quire nine hundred and twenty-five men to man them! just about the complement of one of these seven ships-of-the-line. Does not presidential discretion want regulating when such things as these can be done under the act of 1806? Has any one calculated the amount of this increase, and counted up the amount of men and money which it will cost? The report does not, and, in that respect, is essentially deficient. It ought to be counted, and Mr. B. would attempt it. He acknowledged the difficulty of such an undertaking; how easy it was for a speaker—and especially such a speaker as he was-to get into a fog when he got into masses of millions, and so bewilder others as well as himself. To avoid this, details must be avoided, and results made plain by simplifying the elements of calculation. He would endeavor to do so, by taking a few plain data, in this

results, therefore, mathematically demonstrated.

Look at it. Examine the plan in its parts, and see the enormity of its proportions. Two ships-of-the-line, four frigates, and four sloops and brigs for the Mediterranean—a sea as free from danger to our commerce as is the Chesapeake Bay. Why, sir, our Secretary is from the land of Decatur, and must have heard of that commander, and how with three lit-case-the data correct in themselves, and the tle frigates, one sloop, and a few brigs and schooners, he humbled Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis, and put an end to their depredations on American ships and commerce. He must have heard of Lord Exmouth, who, with less force than he proposes to send to the Mediterranean, went there and crushed the fortifications of Algiers, and took the bond of the pirates never to trouble a Christian again. And he must have heard of the French, who, since 1830, are the owners of Algiers. Certainly the Mediterra

He would take the guns and the men-show what we had now, and what we proposed to have; and what was the cost of each gun afloat, and the number of men to work it. The number of guns we now have afloat is nine hundred and thirty-seven; the number of men between eleven and twelve thousand; and the estimated cost for the whole, a fraction over eight millions of dollars. This would give about twelve men and about nine thousand dollars to each gun.

ment of 1843, costing about fifteen millions and a half of dollars.

But I am asked, and in a way to question my

[Mr. BAYARD asked how could these nine thousand dollars a gun be made out?] Mr. BENTON replied. By counting every thing that was necessary to give you the use of the gun-computation, how I get at these nine thousand every thing incident to its use-every thing belonging to the whole naval establishment. The end, design, and effect of the whole establishment, was to give you the use of the gun. That was all that was wanted. But, to get it, an establishment had to be kept up of vast extent and variety of shops and yards on land, as well as ships at sea-of salaries and pensions, as well as powder and balls. Every expense is counted, and that gives the cost per gun. Mr. B. said he would now analyze the gentleman's report, and see what addition these five squadrons would make to the expense of the naval establishment. The first point was, to find the number of guns which they were to bear, and which was the element in the calculation that would lead to the results sought for. Recurring to the gentleman's report, and taking the number of each class of vessels, and the number of guns which each would carry, and the results would be:

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

dollars cost for each gun afloat? I answer-by a simple and obvious process. I take the whole annual cost of the navy department, and then see how many guns we have afloat. The ob ject is to get guns afloat, and the whole establishment is subordinate and incidental to that object. Not only the gun itself, the ship which carries it, and the men who work it, are to be taken into the account, but the docks and navyyards at home, the hospitals and pensions, the marines and guards-every thing, in fact, which constituted the expense of the naval establishment. The whole is employed, or incurred, to produce the result-which is, so many guns at sea to be fired upon the enemy. The whole is incurred for the sake of the guns, and therefore all must be counted. Going by this rule (said Mr. B.), it would be easily shown that his statement of yesterday was about correctrather under than over; and this could be seen by making a brief and plain sum in arithmetic. We have the number of guns afloat, and the estimated expense for the year: the guns 936; 704 the estimate for the year is $8,705,579. Now, 260 divide this amount by the number of guns, and 100 the result is a little upwards of $9,200 to each 80 one. This proves the correctness of the statement made yesterday; it proves it for the present year, which is the one in controversy. The result will be about the same for several previous years. Mr. B. said he had looked over the years 1841 and 1838, and found this to be the result: in 1841, the guns were 747, and the expense of the naval establishment $6,196,516. Divide the money by the guns, and you have a little upwards of $8,300. In 1838, the guns were 670, and the expense $5,980,971. This will give a little upwards of $8,900 to the gun. The average of the whole three years will be just about $9,000.

560

1,704

Here (said Mr. B.) is an aggregate of 1,704 guns, which, at $9,000 each gun, would give $15,336,000, as the sum which the Treasury would have to pay for a naval establishment which would give us the use of that number. Deduct the difference between the 937, the present number of guns, and this 1,704, and you have 767 for the increased number of guns, which, at $9,000 each, will give $6,903,000 for the increased cost in money. This was the moneyed result of the increase. Now take the personal increase—that is to say, the increased number of men which the five squadrons would require. Taking ten men and two officers to the gun-in all, twelve-and the increased number of men and officers required for 767 guns would be 8,204. Add these to the 11,000 or 12,000 now in service, and you have close upon 20,000 men for the naval peace establish

Thus, the senator from New Hampshire [Mr. WOODBURY] and himself were correct in their statement, and the figures proved it. At the same time, the senator from Delaware [Mr. BAYARD] is undoubtedly correct in taking a small number of guns, and saying they may be added without incurring an expense of more than three or four thousand dollars. Small ad

ditions may be made, without incurring any thing but the expense of the gun itself, and the men who work it. But that is not the question here. The question is to almost double the number; it is to carry up 937 to 1,700. Here is an increase intended by the Secretary of the Navy of near 800 guns-perhaps quite 800, if the seventy-fours carry ninety guns, as intimated by the senator [Mr. BAYARD] this day. These seven or eight hundred guns could not be added without ships to carry them, and all the expense on land which is incident to the construction of these ships. These seven or eight hundred additional guns would require seven or eight thousand men, and a great many officers. Ten men and two officers to the gun is the estimate. The present establishment is near that rate, and the increase must be in the same proportion. The present number of men in the navy, exclusive of officers, is 9,784 which is a fraction over ten to the gun. The number of officers now in service (midshipmen, surgeons, &c., included) is near 1,300, besides the list of nominations not yet confirmed. This is in the proportion of nearly one and a half to a gun. Apply the whole to the intended increase the increase which the report of the committee discloses to us-and you will have close upon 17,000 men and 2,000 officers for the peace establishment of the navy-in all, near 20,000 men! and this, independent of those employed on land, and the 2,000 mechanics and laborers who are usually at our navy-yards. Now, these men and officers cost money: two hundred and twenty-six dollars per annum per man, and eight hundred and fifty dollars per annum per officer, was the average cost in 1833, as stated in the report of the then Secretary of the Navy, the present senator from New Hampshire [Mr. WOODBURY]. What it is now, Mr. B. did not know, but knew it was greater for the officers now, than it was then. But one thing he did know-and that was, that a naval peace establishment of the magnitude disclosed in the committee's report (six squadrons, 54 vessels, 1,700 guns, 17,000 men, and 2,000 or 3,000 officers) would break down the whole navy of the United States.

Mr. B. said we had just had a presidential election carried on a hue-and-cry against extravagance, and a hurrah for a change, and a

promise to carry on the government for thirteen millions of dollars; and here were fifteen and a half millions for one branch of the service! and those who oppose it are to be stigmatized as architects of ruin, and enemies of the navy; and a hue-and-cry raised against them for the opposition. He said we had just voted a set of resolutions [Mr. CLAY's] to limit the expenses of the government to twenty-two millions; and yet here are two-thirds of that sum proposed for one branch of the service-a branch which, under General Jackson's administration, cost about four millions, and was intended to be limited to about that amount. This was the economy-the retrenchment-the saving of the people's money, which was promised before the election!

Mr. B. would not go into points so well stated by the senator from New Hampshire [Mr. WOODBURY] on yesterday, that our present peace naval establishment exceeds the cost of the war establishment during the late war; that we pay far more money, and get much fewer guns and men than the British do for the same money. He would omit the tables which he had on hand to prove these important points, and would go on to say that it was an obligation of imperious duty on Congress to arrest the present state of things; to turn back the establishment to what it was a year ago; and to go to work at the next session of Congress to regulate the United States naval peace establishment by law. When that bill came up, a great question would have to be decided-the question of a navy for defence, or for offence! When that question came on, he would give his opinion upon it, and his reasons for that opinion. A navy of some degree, and of some kind, all seemed to be agreed upon; but what it is to be-whether to defend our homes, or carry war abroad—is a question yet to be decided, and on which the wisdom and the patriotism of the country would be called into requisition. He would only say, at present, that coasts and cities could be defended without great fleets at sea. The history of continental Europe was full of the proofs. England, with her thousand ships, could do nothing after Europe was ready for her, during the late wars of the French revolution. He did not speak of attacks in time of peace, like Copenhagen, but of Cadiz and Teneriffe in 1797, and Boulogne and Flushing in

« ПретходнаНастави »