HOME SQUADRON, AND AID TO PRIVATE STEAM LINES.
Great Britain has a home squadron, and that results from her
geographical structure as a cluster of islands, often invaded, more
frequently threatened, and always liable to sudden descents upon
some part of her coast, resulting from her proximity to continental
Europe, and engaged as principal or ally in almost all the wars of
that continent. A fleet for home purposes, to cruise continually
along her coasts, and to watch the neighboring coasts of her often
enemies, was, then, a necessity of her insular position. Not so
with the United States. We are not an island, but a continent,
geographically remote from Europe, and politically still more
so--unconnected with the wars of Europe--having but few of our own;
having but little cause to expect descents and invasions, and but
little to fear from them, if they came. Piracy had disappeared from
the West Indies twenty years before. We had then no need for a home
squadron. But Great Britain had one; and therefore we must. That was
the true reason, with the desire for a great navy, cherished by the
party opposed to the democracy (no matter under what name), and now
dominant in all the departments of the government, for the creation
of a home squadron at this session. The Secretary of the Navy and
the navy board recommended it: Mr. Thomas Butler King, from the
Naval Committee of the House, reported a bill for it, elaborately
recommended in a most ample report: the two Houses passed it: the
President approved it: and thus, at this extra session, was fastened
upon the country a supernumerary fleet of two frigates, two sloops,
two schooners, and two armed steamers: for the annual subsistence
and repairs of which, about nine hundred thousand dollars were
appropriated. This was fifteen years ago; and the country has yet to
hear of the first want, the first service, rendered by this domestic
squadron. In the mean time, it furnishes comfortable pay and
subsistence, and commodious living about home, to some considerable
number of officers and men.
But the ample report which was drawn up, and of which five thousand
extra copies were printed, and the speeches delivered in its favor
were bound to produce reasons for this new precaution against the
danger of invasion, now to be provided after threescore years of
existence without it, and when we had grown too strong, and too
well covered our maritime cities with fortresses, to dread the
descent of any enemy. Reasons were necessary to be given, and were;
in which the British example, of course, was omitted. But reasons
were given (in addition to the main object of defence), as that
it would be a school for the instruction of the young midshipmen;
and that it would give employment to many junior officers then idle
in the cities. With respect to the first of these reasons it was
believed by some that the merchant service was the best school in
which a naval officer was ever trained; and with respect to the idle
officers, that the true remedy was not to create so many. The sum
appropriated by the bill was in gross--so much for all the different
objects named in the bill, without saying how much for each. This
was objected to by Mr. McKay of North Carolina, as being contrary to
democratic practice, which required specific appropriations; also as
being a mere disguise for an increase of the navy; and further that
it was not competent for Congress to limit the employment of a navy.
He said:
"That the bill before the committee proposed to appropriate
a gross sum to effect the object in view, which he deemed
a departure from the wholesome rule heretofore observed in
making appropriations. It was known to all that since the
political revolution of 1800, which placed the democratic party
in power, the doctrine had generally prevailed, that all our
appropriations should be specific. Now he would suggest to the
chairman whether it would not be better to pursue that course in
the present instance. Here Mr. McKay enumerated the different
items of expenditure to be provided for in the bill, and named
the specific sum for each. This was the form, he said, in which
all our naval appropriation bills had heretofore passed. He saw
no reason for a departure from this wholesome practice in this
instance--a practice which was the best and most effectual means
of securing the accountability of our disbursing officers. There
was another suggestion he would throw out for the consideration
of the chairman, and he thought it possessed some weight. This
bill purported to be for the establishment of a home squadron,
but he looked upon it as nothing more nor less than for the
increase of the navy. Again, could Congress be asked to direct
the manner in which this squadron, after it was fitted out,
should be employed? It was true that by the constitution,
Congress alone was authorized to build and fit out a navy,
but the President was the commander-in-chief, and had alone
the power to direct how and where it should be employed. The
title of this bill, therefore, should be 'a bill to increase
the navy,' for it would not be imperative on the President to
employ this squadron on our coasts. Mr. M. said he did not rise
to enter into a long discussion, but merely to suggest to the
consideration of the chairman of the committee, the propriety
of making the appropriations in the bill specific."
"Mr. WISE said that he agreed entirely with the gentleman from
North Carolina as to the doctrine of specific appropriations;
and if he supposed that this bill violated that salutary
principle he should be willing to amend it. But it did not; it
declared a specific object, for which the money was given. He
did not see the necessity of going into all the items which made
up the sum. That Congress had no power to ordain that a portion
of the navy should be always retained upon the coast as a home
squadron, was to him a new doctrine. The bill did not say that
these vessels should never be sent any where else."
"Mr. MCKAY insisted on the ground he had taken, and went into a
very handsome eulogy on the principle of specific appropriations
of the public money, as giving to the people the only security
they had for the proper and the economical use of their money;
but this, by the present shape of the bill, they would entirely
be deprived of. The bill might be modified with the utmost ease,
but he should move no amendments."
Mr. Thomas Butler King, the reporter of the bill, entered largely
into its support, and made some comparative statements to show
that much money had been expended heretofore on the navy with very
inadequate results in getting guns afloat, going as high as eight
millions of dollars in a year and floating but five hundred and
fifty guns; and claimed an improvement now, as, for seven millions
and a third they would float one thousand and seventy guns. Mr. King
then said:
"He had heard much about the abuse and misapplication of moneys
appropriated for the navy, and he believed it all to be true. To
illustrate the truth of the charge, he would refer to the table
already quoted, showing on one hand the appropriations made, and
on the other the results thereby obtained. In 1800 there had
been an appropriation of $2,704,148, and we had then 876 guns
afloat; while in 1836, with an appropriation of $7,011,055, we
had but 462 guns afloat. In 1841, with an appropriation of a
little over _three_ millions, we had 836 guns afloat; and in
1838, with an appropriation of over _eight_ millions, we had
but 554 guns afloat. These facts were sufficient to show how
enormous must have been the abuses somewhere."
Mr. King also gave a statement of the French and British navies, and
showed their great strength, in order to encourage our own building
of a great navy to be able to cope with them on the ocean. He
"Alluded to the change which had manifested itself in the naval
policy of Great Britain, in regard to a substitution of steam
power for ordinary ships of war. He stated the enumeration of
the British fleet, in 1840, to be as follows: ships of the line,
105; vessels of a lower grade, in all, 403; and war steamers,
87. The number of steamers had since then been stated at 300.
The French navy, in 1840, consisted of 23 ships of the line, 180
lesser vessels, and 36 steamers; besides which, there had been,
at that time, eight more steamers on the stocks. These vessels
could be propelled by steam across the Atlantic in twelve or
fourteen days. What would be the condition of the lives and
property of our people, if encountered by a force of this
description, without a gun to defend themselves?"
Lines of railroad, with their steam-cars, had not, at that time,
taken such extension and multiplication as to be taken into
the account for national defence. Now troops can come from the
geographical centre of Missouri in about sixty hours (summoned by
the electric telegraph in a few minutes), and arrive at almost any
point on the Atlantic coast; and from all the intermediate States
in a proportionately less time. The railroad, and the electric
telegraph, have opened a new era in defensive war, and especially
for the United States, superseding old ideas, and depriving invasion
of all alarm. But the bill was passed--almost unanimously--only
eight votes against it in the House; namely: Linn Boyd of Kentucky;
Walter Coles of Virginia; John G. Floyd of New York; William O.
Goode of Virginia; Cave Johnson, Abraham McClelland, and Hopkins L.
Turney of Tennessee; and John Thompson Mason of Maryland. It passed
the Senate without yeas and nays.
A part of the report in favor of the home squadron was also a
recommendation to extend assistance out of the public treasury to
the establishment of private lines of ocean steamers, adapted to war
purposes; and in conformity to it Mr. King moved this resolution:
"_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Navy is hereby directed
to inquire into the expediency of aiding individuals or
companies in our establishment of lines of armed steamers
between some of our principal Northern and Southern ports,
and to foreign ports; to advertise for proposals for the
establishment of such lines as he may deem most important and
practicable; and to report to this House at the next session of
Congress."
This resolution was adopted, and laid the foundation for those
annual enormous appropriations for private lines of ocean steamers
which have subjected many members of Congress to such odious
imputations, and which has taken, and is taking, so many millions of
the public money to enable individuals to break down competition,
and enrich themselves at the public expense. It was a measure worthy
to go with the home squadron, and the worst of the two--each a
useless waste of money; and each illustrating the difficulty, and
almost total impossibility, of getting rid of bad measures when once
passed, and an interest created for them.