Mr. Foss. The same as to captains and commanders? Commanders now at sea or who have yet had no sea service in grade are not included. Mr. Foss. The aids, I understand, pass upon the recommendation of the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation in the selection of officers for command rank, including rear admirals who are to command the squadrons and divisions and the fleet. Answer. They advise the Secretary on these selections, and include all officers available for these duties. Mr. Foss. Please state what officers who have performed the duties of the aids in the Navy Department have been subsequently placed in command of squadrons or divisions of the fleet and the fleet. Answer. Out of about 19 available positions, but 3 have been filled by officers who have held the position of aid: Rear Admiral Aaron Ward, from aid for inspections to command of a division; he had previously commanded the Pennsylvania. Rear Admiral F. F. Fletcher, from aid for material to command of a division; he commanded the Raleigh as commander and the Vermont as captain. Rear Admiral C. J. Badger went from command of a battleship immediately to command a division, thence became aid for inspections, and is now back in the fleet as commander in chief. He also commanded the Chicago when a commander. Mr. Foss. Is the department making any effort to distribute duty. so that officers of command rank may have any definite length of service in actual command of seagoing vessels? Answer. Yes; for captains the effort is for two years or more; and for commanders, three years, part of it as executive of a battleship or armored cruiser. This is gradually becoming possible with the increased time in these grades, but can not be accomplished at once without more ships in commission and frequent changes. With the rapidly lengthening time in these grades, commanders will have more than three years, and captains will look forward to two cruises of about two years each. Mr. Foss. Last year during the debate in the House on the naval appropriation bill it was stated in a letter from the department that it would necessitate the expenditure of over $28,000,000 to give all captains and commanders two years sea service in their grades. Do you think it possible to properly train officers in command rank in a period of less than two years sea service of actual command of a seagoing ship? Answer. The statement quoted from the department's letter is incomplete. Its meaning can hardly be shown clearly apart from the whole letter. The letter was an expression of the department's views and recommendations on several alternate propositions for a seaservice requirement for promotion. Referring to the first two propositions, which made large demands for immediate sea service for officers near promotion, the letter declared both to be physically impossible of execution. The same paragraph continued in explanation, as follows: There are at present sufficient captains and commanders for the whole fleet, but the other grades of officers and the men are materially short. To commission the whole fleet, which would be necessary to carry out the provisions for captains and commanders, would require an increase of approximately 1,424 officers and 18,500 men. This would add to the annual expense of the Navy about $3,956,000 in pay of officers, and $10,220,000 in pay and rations of men, and $3,650,000 in maintenance, and $1,350,000 for probable repairs, making a total of $19,176,000. These figures do not include 43 vessels now under construction. To keep them in active service would require approximately 291 officers and 6,400 men. This would add annually to the above figures about $808,400 in pay of officers, and $3,535,700 in pay and rations of men, and $3,370,000 in maintenance, and $1.125,000 for probable repairs, making a total for vessels under construction of $8,939,100. The above figures show that it would cost annually to place all serviceable vessels now on the Navy list and those under construction in active service $28,115,100. The same letter gives the practice in foreign navies in regard to sea service compared with our own, as follows: [Prepared from the United States Navy Register for January 1, 1912.] The "sea-service" averages are higher in the lower grades, and when the whole situation is contrasted with the requirements of foreign services, the comparison is altogether in favor of the United States Navy as to sea experience, thus: Great Britain requires only 12 years total service from date of first commission, 7 years of which must be at sea, to make an officer eligible for promotion to the grade of rear admiral. To the sea service required in commissioned grades must be added about five years at sea while still midshipmen, a total of 12 years. The average total sea service of United States officers in the grade of captain to-day is 19 years. Japan promotes entirely by selection, but an officer becomes eligible for promotion to the grade of rear admiral after 14 years' service. The number of years of actual sea service required is not known. Our officers average nearly 32 years of service and 19 of sea service before promotion to rear admiral. France promotes partly by selection and partly by seniority, but an officer required only 12 years actual sea service after first commission to make him eligible for promotion to rear admiral. Germany promotes by seniority only, but maintains a working organization by a sweeping process of elimination (retirement) at the discretion of the Chief Executive, such elimination being based upon reports of commanding officers as to the efficiency of the officers under his command. There appears to be no definite "sea-service" requirement. The training of line officers for command begins with their entry into the service, and in the grades below commander there are many officers-lieutenant commanders, lieutenants, and even ensigns-who get experience in actual command of destroyers and smaller vessels. No officer is promoted unless found qualified for the higher duties. Any subsequent lack of fitness is immediately apparent, and every six months a report must be made to the department on every officer, whether fit or unfit, stating categorically and in detail whether he is performing his duties satisfactorily. The question whether less than two years' sea service in each grade is sufficient for captains and commanders is best answered by the performance of our ships. Sea service is valuable for captains more for practice than for sea training; less for what they learn than for the service they render in training juniors. Training in the grade of captain looks mainly to the duties of flag rank. Sea service is an important factor but not the only one, the requisite qualifications being much broader, combining large administrative experience and War College studies. An officer's whole career must be considered in estimating his fitness for the duties of flag rank. Mr. Foss. If it is maintained that the Navy ships can not be kept in commission to give officers of command rank at least two years' actual sea service in their grade without the enormous expenditure of twenty-eight millions of dollars per year, should not the number of captains and commanders be reduced? Answer. As stated in the previous answer, the hypothesis does not quote the department correctly. With the money, officers, and men now authorized, officers of command rank already have a reasonable amount-one year and nine months as captain, and one year and six months or more as commander, not to mention the command experience, some of it in war or other active operations, which many of the present command rank officers have had in lower grades. With longer time in grade, the amount of sea service will increase, and is actually now increasing, to two years or more for captains and three years for commanders; but to require a given length of sea service. would at this time cause numerous and frequent changes and many more ships in commission. On general principles the number of captains and commanders should not be reduced, but on the contrary increased, because of the enormous demands of a possible war. Captains and commanders would be needed for the large number of scouts, converted, and auxiliary vessels that would be purchased, as well as for all the naval vessels on the list, making a total far beyond our present number. If this number were reduced, junior officers would have to perform duties in war far above their rank and experience at the very time when the best experience is most imperative. The list of captains and commanders must be kept on a war footing. You can not reIcruit them anywhere. Mr. Foss. If the Navy is really the fleet, is it not an unwise policy to have officers of command rank without sufficient opportunity to properly train them in actual command of the fleet? Answer. It would certainly be unwise to make flag officers out of officers insufficiently trained as captains of ships; we do not do this. It is still more undesirable to place officers in the highest flag commands without sufficient previous experience as flag officers. In order to have proper experience as a flag officer before commanding a fleet they should reach flag rank much earlier than they do now. This point has been urged before the committee for several years, and a proposed reorganization of Navy personnel to bring about more rational adjustment of duty, service in grade, and age is now before the committee. Mr. HOBSON. I would like to ask whether the Secretary would recommend a continuation of the practice of not less than two appointees at Annapolis for each Member of Congress and each Senator? I understand that law is going to expire at an early date unless we do something. Would you recommend that that be continued? Secretary MEYER. Yes; not less than two. Mr. BATHRICK. I have been asking questions repeatedly of various representatives of the Navy respecting the line of questions asked of applicants proposed by Congressmen. I do not remember, but I think you stated once that you thought they were rather severe, did you not; and, if not, what is your opinion now? Secretary MEYER. I do not recall that. Mr. BATHRICK. Perhaps you did not. What do you think of that now? Secretary MEYER. I am not familiar with the questions, to tell the truth. Mr. BATHRICK. I believe it is true that a very large percentage of those who apply to take the examination fail to pass a very large percentage. Secretary MEYER. I think we want to get the best men we can. It is very different from the entrance to any college, for the reason that when a man goes to Annapolis he is going to get his education at the expense of the Government, a splendid education at that, and therefore the Government should protect itself by trying to get the man with the greatest ability, mentally and physically. I think that has been the policy and that is the great reason we have had a navy the country has been so proud of. Mr. BATHRICK. While we require a high standard of ability of our applicants and a very severe physical examination, there is no systematic manner of ascertaining their courage, energy, and industry, and if you leave these qualifications out neither his military fitness in technology of any branch nor his physical fitness would make him the best class of naval officer. Secretary MEYER. Of course they have been entering at 15 and 16 years of age, and it is very hard to find out what the courage of a man is at that time. The other features that you speak of are brought out through their education at Annapolis when they come into close contact. Mr. BATHRICK. If they fail in those characteristics they will not become good officers? Secretary MEYER. No; not necessarily. Mr. BATHRICK. I think it is required that too much of their education shall be secured before they go into the academy. That is the position I take in the matter. Secretary MEYER. We have made some changes down there in the way of the regulations and discipline. The discipline now is tending to be less severe in certain directions. For instance, if a man gets a black mark as punishment for behavior which is not of a severe character, the idea is not to hold it up against him, but he is to be given another chance. For the past three years we have been considering the question that it shall not be merely a system of marks obtained, a credit merely for a mark and a discredit merely for a little foolery. but to take into consideration the youth of the boy the first year and the strangeness of his occupation, and then give him another trial and bring out the man. Mr. BATHRICK. Mr. Secretary, it was stated here the other day that they were annually turning out 150 officers from the Naval Academy and that we were about 3,000 officers short to complete our present force on board the ships that we have to-day. That means that we are 20 years short. It was also suggested that in case of an emergency the upper class and our reserve would be called upon, and that a sort of arrangement could be made in case of the sudden development of war whereby we could fill out the complement of men. If we are preparing to face that ordeal when we are behind 20 years in turning out the required officers, and we are building ships all the time, why not be less severe with the men asked to come into the academy now? Secretary MEYER. We are considering that. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, I have just received the letter transmitting the supplemental estimates. I will insert it in the hearings, and if there is anything additional you wish to say, please make a full statement. Secretary MEYER. Very well. The letter referred to by the chairman follows: [House Document No. 1263, Sixty-second Congress. third session.] TREASURY DEPARTMENT, The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith, for the consideration of Congress, copy of a communication from the Secretary of the Navy of the 4th instant, submitting supplemental estimates of appropriations required for the naval service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1914, for the following objects: Ordnance and ordnance stores, Bureau of Ordnance_. $100,000 140,000 |