Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
February 3, 1879
The Cincinnati Daily Star
Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio
What is this article about?
Editorial criticizes the U.S. naval establishment as a wasteful expenditure of national resources, highlighting high costs for unseaworthy ships, excessive retired officers, and a small force, contrasting it with necessary army spending against Indians.
OCR Quality
98%
Excellent
Full Text
A USELESS EXPENDITURE.
In many respects the large sums of money expended in keeping up the show or pretense of a naval establishment in this country is getting to be considered a useless squandering of the national resources.
The large appropriations for the army budget have some color of necessity. As long as the bad Indians last we must have paid soldiers to kill them and be killed by them, and this costs money. But for the continuance of a basswood or prunella naval establishment at an annual expense of fourteen or fifteen million dollars, there is no satisfactory excuse. The country has nothing of any corresponding value to show for the vast expenditures of the past eighteen years. A large number of unseaworthy vessels, a few semi-seaworthy vessels, three or four vessels that would rank as second-class in the British Navy, forty-six retired Rear Admirals, drawing $4,500 each per annum for doing nothing; about a dozen Rear Admirals who still keep up a professional pretense of doing something; a long list of Captains, Commodores, Commanders, Lieutenants, &c., &c., clear down to the powder-monkeys, who are the least obnoxious because the least expensive in the list—these "cankers of a calm world and a long peace" are all that Uncle Sam has to show at home or abroad for his money.
The appropriation bill for the next fiscal year sums up $7,834,957 for the pay of the officers and men of the navy and the marine corps, about three-quarters of a million of which is required to support the latter corps, which consists of less than one thousand five hundred men. It takes $675,760 to pay the retired list, which list is very much augmented by retiring able-bodied officers in order to make room for the promotion of others. The whole naval force, which costs the country about $8,000,000 per annum to support, consists of less than nine thousand men, exclusive of the officers, to whose support about three-fourths of the above sum goes. No wonder that the fashionable society of Washington is largely indebted to our naval heroes for its tone and brilliancy.
In many respects the large sums of money expended in keeping up the show or pretense of a naval establishment in this country is getting to be considered a useless squandering of the national resources.
The large appropriations for the army budget have some color of necessity. As long as the bad Indians last we must have paid soldiers to kill them and be killed by them, and this costs money. But for the continuance of a basswood or prunella naval establishment at an annual expense of fourteen or fifteen million dollars, there is no satisfactory excuse. The country has nothing of any corresponding value to show for the vast expenditures of the past eighteen years. A large number of unseaworthy vessels, a few semi-seaworthy vessels, three or four vessels that would rank as second-class in the British Navy, forty-six retired Rear Admirals, drawing $4,500 each per annum for doing nothing; about a dozen Rear Admirals who still keep up a professional pretense of doing something; a long list of Captains, Commodores, Commanders, Lieutenants, &c., &c., clear down to the powder-monkeys, who are the least obnoxious because the least expensive in the list—these "cankers of a calm world and a long peace" are all that Uncle Sam has to show at home or abroad for his money.
The appropriation bill for the next fiscal year sums up $7,834,957 for the pay of the officers and men of the navy and the marine corps, about three-quarters of a million of which is required to support the latter corps, which consists of less than one thousand five hundred men. It takes $675,760 to pay the retired list, which list is very much augmented by retiring able-bodied officers in order to make room for the promotion of others. The whole naval force, which costs the country about $8,000,000 per annum to support, consists of less than nine thousand men, exclusive of the officers, to whose support about three-fourths of the above sum goes. No wonder that the fashionable society of Washington is largely indebted to our naval heroes for its tone and brilliancy.
What sub-type of article is it?
Military Affairs
Economic Policy
What keywords are associated?
Naval Expenditure
Military Waste
U.S. Navy Critique
Retired Officers
Defense Spending
What entities or persons were involved?
U.S. Navy
Uncle Sam
British Navy
Retired Rear Admirals
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Critique Of Naval Expenditures
Stance / Tone
Strongly Critical Of Wasteful Naval Spending
Key Figures
U.S. Navy
Uncle Sam
British Navy
Retired Rear Admirals
Key Arguments
Large Sums Spent On Naval Establishment Are A Useless Squandering Of Resources
No Corresponding Value For Past Expenditures
Unseaworthy Vessels And Excessive Retired Officers
Annual Cost Of $14 15 Million For Minimal Naval Force
Pay For Officers And Men Totals $7,834,957
Retired List Costs $675,760 Due To Promotions
Naval Force Under 9,000 Men With High Officer Salaries