EXPENSE OF THE NAVY: WASTE OF MONEY NECESSITY OF A NAVAL PEACE
ESTABLISHMENT, AND OF A NAVAL POLICY.
The naval policy of the United States was a question of party
division from the origin of parties in the early years of the
government--the federal party favoring a strong and splendid navy,
the republican a moderate establishment, adapted to the purposes of
defence more than of offence: and this line of division between the
parties (under whatsoever names they have since worn), continues
more or less perceptible to the present time. In this time (the
administration of Mr. Tyler) all the branches being of the same
political party, and retaining the early principles of the party
under the name of whig, the policy for a great navy developed itself
with great vigor. The new Secretary, Mr. Upshur, recommended a large
increase of ships, seamen, and officers, involving an additional
expense of about two millions and a half in the naval branch of the
service; and that at a time when a deficit of fourteen millions
was announced, and a resort to taxes, loans and treasury notes
recommended to make it up; and when no emergency required increase
in that branch of the public service. Such a recommendation brought
on a debate in which the policy of a great navy was discussed--the
necessity of a naval peace establishment was urged--the cost of
our establishment examined--and the waste of money in the naval
department severely exposed. Mr. Calhoun, always attentive to the
economical working of the government, opened the discussion on this
interesting point.
"The aggregate expense of the British navy in the year 1840
amounted to 4,980,353 pounds sterling, deducting the expense
of transport for troops and convicts, which does not properly
belong to the navy. That sum, at $4 80 to the pound sterling, is
equal to $23,905,694 46. The navy was composed of 392 vessels
of war of all descriptions, leaving out 36 steam vessels in the
packet service, and 23 sloops fitted for foreign packets. Of the
392, 98 were line of battle ships, of which 19 were building;
116 frigates, of which 14 were building; 68 sloops, of which 13
were building; 44 steam vessels, of which 16 were building; and
66 gun brigs, schooners, and cutters, of which 12 were building.
"The effective force of the year--that which was in actual
service, consisted of 3,400 officers, 3,998 petty officers,
12,846 seamen, and 9,000 marines, making an aggregate of 29,244.
The number of vessels in actual service were 175, of which 24
were line of battle ships, 31 frigates, 30 steam vessels, and 45
gun brigs, schooners, and cutters, not including the 30 steamers
and 24 sloops in the packet service, at an average expenditure
of $573 for each individual, including officers, petty officers,
seamen, and marines.
"Our navy is composed, at present, according to the report
of the Secretary accompanying the President's message, of 67
vessels--of which 11 are line of battle ships, 17 frigates,
18 sloops of war, 2 brigs, 4 schooners, 4 steamers, 3 store
ships, 3 receiving vessels, and 5 small schooners. The estimates
for the year are made on the assumption, that there will be
in service during the year, 2 ships of the line, 1 razee, 6
frigates, 20 sloops, 11 brigs and schooners, 3 steamers, 3 store
ships and 8 small vessels; making in the aggregate, 53 vessels.
The estimates for the year, for the navy and marine corps,
as has been stated, is $8,705,579 83, considerably exceeding
one-third of the entire expenditures of the British navy for
1840.
"Mr. C. contended there should be no difference in the expenses
of the two navies. We should build as cheap and employ men as
cheap, or we should not be able to compete with the British
navy. If our navy should prove vastly more expensive than the
British navy, we might as well give up, and he recommended this
matter to the consideration of the Senate.
"Among the objects of retrenchment, I place at the head the
great increase that is proposed to be made to the expenditures
of the navy, compared with that of last year. It is no less
than $2,508,032 13, taking the expenditures of last year from
the annual report of the Secretary. I see no sufficient reason,
at this time, and in the present embarrassed condition of the
Treasury, for this great increase. I have looked over the
report of the Secretary hastily, and find none assigned, except
general reasons, for an increased navy, which I am not disposed
to controvert. But I am decidedly of the opinion, that the
commencement ought to be postponed till some systematic plan is
matured, both as to the ratio of increase and the description
of force of which the addition should consist, and till the
department is properly organized, and in a condition to enforce
exact responsibility and economy in its disbursements. That the
department is not now properly organized, and in that condition,
we have the authority of the Secretary himself, in which I
concur. I am satisfied that its administration cannot be made
effective under the present organization, particularly as it
regards its expenditures."
"The expenses of this government were of three classes: the
civil list, the army and the navy; and all of these had been
increased enormously since 1823. The remedy now was to compare
the present with the past, mark the difference, and compel the
difference to be accounted for. He cited 1823, and intended to
make that the standard, because that was the standard for him,
the government being then economically administered. He selected
1823, also, because in 1824 we commenced a new system, and that
of protection, which had done so much evil. We had made two
tariffs since then, the origin of all evils. The civil list rose
in seventeen years from about $2,000,000 to $6,000,000--nearly a
threefold proportion compared with the increase of population.
In Congress the increase had been enormous. The increase of
contingent expenses had been fivefold, and compared with
population, sixfold. The aggregate expenses of the two Houses
now amounted to more than $250,000. The expense of collecting
revenue had also been enormously increased. From 1823 it had
gone up from $700,000 to $1,700,000--an increase of one million
of dollars. The expense on collection in 1823 was but one per
cent., now one per cent. and 5-100. Under the tariff these
increases were made from 1824 to 1828. Estimating the expenses
of collection at $800,000, about $1,000,000 would be saved. The
judiciary had increased in this proportion, and the light-house
department also. In the war department, in 1822 (the only year
for which he had estimates), the expenses per man were but $264;
now the increase had gone up to $400 for each individual. At one
time it had been as much as $480 for each individual--$1,400,000
could be saved here in the army proper, including the military
academy alone. It might be said that one was a cheap and the
other a dear year. Far otherwise; meat was never cheaper,
clothing never as cheap as now. All this resulted from the
expansive force of a surplus revenue. In 1822 he had reduced the
expenses of every man in the army.
"It had been proposed to increase the expenditures of the
navy two and a half millions of dollars over the past year,
and he was not ready for this. Deduct two millions from this
recommendation, and it would be two millions saved. These
appropriations, at least, might go over to the next session.
The expenses of the marine corps amounted to nearly six hundred
thousand dollars, nearly six hundred dollars a head--two hundred
dollars a head higher than the army, cadets and all. He hoped
the other expenses of the navy department were not in proportion
so high as this. Between the reductions which might be made in
the marine corps and the navy, two millions and a half might be
saved.
"The Secretary of the Treasury estimates for 32 millions of
dollars for the expenses of the current year. I am satisfied
that $17,000,000 were sufficient to meet the per annum expenses
of the government, and that this sum would have been according
to the ratio of population. This sum, by economy, could be
brought down to fifteen millions, and thus save nine millions
over the present estimates. This could be done in three or four
years--the Executive leading the way, and Congress co-operating
and following the Executive."
This was spoken in the year 1842. Mr. Calhoun was then confident
that the ordinary expenses of the government should not exceed 17
millions of dollars, and that, with good economy that sum might be
further reduced two millions, making the expenses but 15 millions
per annum. The navy was one of the great points to which he looked
for retrenchment and reduction; and on that point he required that
the annual appropriation for the navy should be decreased instead
of being augmented; and that the money appropriated should be
more judiciously and economically applied. The President should
lead the way in economy and retrenchment. Organization as well
as economy was wanted in the navy--a properly organized peace
establishment. The peace establishment of the British navy in 1840,
was 24 millions--there being 173 vessels in commission. Instead
of reduction, the expense of our navy, also in time of peace, is
gaining largely upon hers. It is nearly doubled since Mr. Calhoun
spoke--15 millions in 1855.
Mr. Woodbury, who had been Secretary of the Navy under President
Jackson, spoke decidedly against the proposed increase, and against
the large expenditure in the department, and its unfavorable
comparison with the expenses of the British navy in time of peace.
He said:
"There are twenty-nine or thirty post-captains now on leave or
waiting orders, and from thirty to forty commanders. Many of
them are impatient to be called into active service--hating a
life of indolence--an idle loafing life--and who are anxious
to be performing some public service for the pay they receive.
It was, generally, not their fault that they were not on duty;
but ours, in making them so numerous that they could not be
employed. He dwelt on the peace establishment of England--for
her navy averaged £18,000,000 in time of war, before the year
1820--but her peace establishment was now only £5,000,000 to
6,000,000. Gentlemen talk of 103 post-captains being necessary,
for employment in commission; while England has only 70
post-captains employed in vessels in commission. She had fewer
commanders so employed than our whole number of the same grade.
"The host of English navy officers was on retired and
half-pay--less in amount than ours by one-third when full, and
not one-half of full pay often, when retired; and her seamen
only half. Her vessels afloat, also, were mostly small ones--63
of them being steamers, with only one or two guns on an average.
"That the navy ought to be regulated by law, every gentleman
admits. Without any express law, was there not a manifest
propriety in any proviso which should prevent the number of
appointments from being carried half up, or quite up to the
standard of the British navy, on full pay? It would be a great
relief to the Executive, and the head of the Navy Department, to
fix some limitation on appointments, by which the importunities
with which they are beset shall not be the occasion of
overloading the Government with a greater number of officers in
any grade than the exigencies of the service actually demand. A
clerk in any public office, a lieutenant in the army, a judge
could not be appointed without authority of law; and why should
there not be a similar check with regard to officers in the navy?
"It was urged heretofore, in official communications by himself,
that it would be proper to limit Executive discretion in this;
and a benefit to the Executive and the departments would also
accrue by passing laws regulating the peace establishment. He
had submitted a resolution for that purpose, in December last,
which had not been acted on; though he hoped it yet would be
acted upon before our adjournment. It was better to bring this
matter forward in an appropriation bill, than that there should
be no check at all. It is the only way in which the House now
finds it practicable to effect any control on this question. It
could only be done in an appropriation bill, which gives that
House the power of control as to navy officers. There should
be no reflection on the House on this account; for there is no
reflection on the Executive or the Senate. It is their right and
duty in the present exigency. He considered the introduction
of it into this bill under all the circumstances, not only
highly excusable, but justifiable. He did not mean to say that
a separate law would not, in itself, if prepared early and
seasonably, be more desirable; but he contended this check was
better than none at all. When acting on this proviso the Senate
is acting on the whole bill. It was not put in without some
meaning. It was not merely to strip the Executive and the Senate
of the appointing power, now unlimited: its object was to reduce
the expenses of the navy, from the Secretary of the Navy's
estimate of eight and a half millions of dollars, to about
$6,293,000. That was the whole effect of the whole measure, and
of all the changes in the bill.
"The difference between both sides of the 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 limitations 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.