Some Ideas About Organization on Board Ship.
PRIZE ESSAY.
REAR-ADMIRAL ASA WALKER, U. S. NAVY—From my point of view, Mr. King's essay is altogether admirable, both in suggestion and composition.
Such organization as he advocates would place our personnel on an advanced plane in efficiency and economy.
I am unable to make any adverse comment on any point that he has treated, though, naturally, some of them would bear amplification. They are all most sound and easy of application.
The scheme for doing away with that old-time rabble, the "Powder Division," is an inspiration in the right direction and its adoption would be hailed with enthusiasm by the naval service.
I have never read a paper with which in its entirety I so fully agree.
CAPTAIN A. C. DILLINGHAM, U. S. NAVY.—The conception of organization and administration, as laid down by Lieutenant King, is admirable, and I believe if adopted will add to the efficiency of the ship.
When serving as executive officer of a gunboat and two battleships, I put in force almost the identical system of organization and administration as suggested by the author, excepting that the powder division did exist, but at that time it was apparent that greater efficiency would have been the result by distributing the powder division as suggested by Lieutenant King.
In the administration, I became the general manager of the plant, under the directions of the commanding officer, leaving the details of each division to divisional officers. I would even go further than is suggested by the author in turning over to the divisional officers all matters pertaining to their divisions, leaving to the executive officer a rigid supervision of all the units.
To get the greatest percent of efficiency out of a command, it is necessary that the character and personality of each and every individual in the command should be known and appreciated, and it is quite impossible for the executive officer to accomplish this, but very easy, and a matter of necessity, for the divisional officer.
I believe that it is desirable, aboard ship, to have the relations between the divisions and divisional officers such as exist in the army between the company and the company commander.
In the matter of supplies of material, clothing, small stores, and money, it should be left entirely in the hands of the divisional officer, he would be limited only by the allowance as established by the executive officer.
I am in entire accord with Lieutenant King, but I notice that he has made no provision for marines aboard ship as part of the ship's company.
Efficiency is the basis of all organization, and if we get the minimum efficiency aboard a ship manned entirely by soldiers, it is fair to suppose that we will get the maximum percentage of efficiency in a ship manned entirely by sailors. It goes without saying that if there is any unnecessary element aboard ship which detracts from its efficiency, that element should be removed. However, if for other than military reasons marines are to be in the complement of a man-o'-war, then to get the highest percentage of efficiency, we must, by education and training, turn the marines into men-o'-warsmen as soon as possible. To this end complement of marines should be sufficient to man a secondary gun division, and in this organization they should be handled and considered, in every respect, as any other gun division of the ship's company; in other words they will become men-o'-warsmen and be identical with the rest of the ship's company, excepting in the matter of uniform.
It might be better to have the marines as part of the ship's staff, but if they have come to stay and are allowed in sufficient numbers, the sooner we make them identical with the other members of the ship's company, the better.
Referring particularly to the paragraph on page fifteen, "Petty Officers vs. Rated Men":
It is only necessary to look over the allowed complement of a battleship to-day to realize the large number of men in a ship's company who are wearing petty officers' badges on their arms.
The conditions that exist in the service in this respect cannot be better set forth than is done by the author. Some two years ago I wrote the Bureau of Navigation upon this subject and submitted a list of ratings that should be petty officers from a military viewpoint, and I believe the Department appreciates the present faulty condition existing in having no discrimination between petty officers and rated men, and is ready to put into force, at a convenient time, the suggestions that have been made upon this subject.
The consideration of this question I believe to be most important, for it affects most seriously discipline and efficiency.
I trust that the Bureau will see fit to make the necessary change in the regulations.
Regarding this discrimination between petty officers and rated men, the author might insert, as number three on page twenty-five: "Increase the responsibility and authority of petty officers while in no way detracting from the position or proper performance of duty of the rated men."
The Reorganization of the Naval Establishment.
REAR-ADMIRAL CASPAR F. GOODRICH, U. S. NAVY.—Having, like Charles Dickens' Joe, a "slow mind," I fear I may not grasp all the niceties of metaphor which this interesting article presents, but where I can put myself in the writer's place, his views seem often correct. For example: No one can deny his contentions that "The industrial and commercial part of the naval establishment is the auxiliary of nothing; it is a main part"; and that "At the point where the line officer is obliged to break off, to keep his sea efficiency intact, the staff corps begin"; and that "The sea officer of the line should have nothing to do with the procuring or keeping of supplies in store, and the accounting for value, except as 'senior officer present.'" In the latter case I suppose he does not include ammunition, etc.
I am not among those who believe it well to keep the line officer always at sea and thus to prevent him from identifying himself to a certain extent with the shore-going part of the navy (by far its most costly branch). As much that adds to his efficiency can only be learned on shore, I deem it rather the part of wisdom to give him ample opportunity for studying the construction, arming and equipment of ships before they go into commission, for gaining touch with shop organization and methods and for acquiring an insight into business ways, for, after all, the navy is a large business enterprise, handling vast sums of the public money each year. Its officers could not, if they would, divorce themselves from the necessity of spending these millions prudently and economically. Heretofore this knowledge has been gained by actual control of the work itself, but since a recent general order of the Navy Department takes this responsibility out of the hands of the line officer and makes him only an inspector, it is possible that he will have even more abundant occasion for overlooking the work while in operation and at its completion, than when he was, himself, accountable for its proper execution.
Believing, as I do, that the broadest knowledge is essential to correct appreciation, Pay Inspector Mudd's idea appeals strongly to my sense of the appropriateness. "What the writer would like to see before anything radical is done would be the stationing of sea officers of the line in the various bureaus for two months, these officers selected preferably from those who are quite dissatisfied with present conditions. Have one in the office of each bureau chief, to remain constantly by that chief during his work day, having the privilege of reading any paper that passes through the office. Change these students at the end of the first month so that each will have had experience in more than one bureau at the end of the time of study. When the time expires, have them submit individual reports of what they do not like and suggest remedies."
The suggestion is eminently sensible and practical that officers entering a staff corps should be on probation for two years and retained only if very desirable. It is notoriously difficult to get rid of an officer who barely keeps himself up to the lowest limit of efficiency.
His remarks upon navy yards are particularly interesting to me at this moment. I should say, as a rule, that nothing should be manufactured by the government which it can buy at a reasonable price from an outsider.
I quote with approval the following: "It has been whispered that the line officer commandants ought to go, when consolidation of shops, etc., is effected at all the yards, and in their places be substituted superintendents selected from the industrial branch. That is bad. There should always be a sea officer of the line in command of a navy yard. A yard's structure is not along the lines of the Navy Department proper, with the Secretary present as its head. The fact that there are almost constantly present at an important yard active units of the fleet, which often embrace a flag officer's ship, is reason enough for having the yards commanded as they are now, let alone several other excellent reasons not necessary to mention."
With his allegation that the New York Navy Yard has been cramped for years for lack of proper equipment in the way of buildings, I am not able to agree. The further ahead we proceed in our scheme of consolidation, the more room we have at our disposal. Old wooden sheds are being torn down and large buildings have become available for new and unexpected employment. In point of fact, we have practically all the buildings we want, and some will be left almost entirely vacant. I should regret seeing the cob dock given over to industrial and material purposes of the navy, for I think the more the shops and stores can be concentrated along the water front, the better.
Neither can I endorse his statement that "All of the small navy yards and stations should be closed, but not sold; they could be put in charge of care-takers selected from worthy retired officers." The only way to keep the small navy yards closed is to get rid of the land entirely, otherwise local pressure will surely, as in the past, reopen them.
The Department is now forming plans by which to provide for the people whom Pay Inspector Mudd very properly indicates as most desirable for under inspectors.
Navy yards for the navy will come about when no member of either the House or Senate Naval Committee represents a district in which a naval station is placed. It is understood that Mr. Speaker Cannon's views are along these lines. I think it would be well if the Senate were to govern itself similarly.
I think the whole naval service should be grateful to the writer for giving his opinions. Whether we agree with him or not is immaterial. Out of the discussion which is bound to follow so illuminating an essay, great good to the naval service will be gained.
We must, like him, cultivate the open mind and engage in the search after truth, for truth's, and not our own individual sake.