Chapter CXXXII

THE HOME SQUADRON: ITS INUTILITY AND EXPENSE.

Early in the session of '43-'44, Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, brought into the House a resolution of inquiry into the origin, use, and expense of the home squadron: to which Mr. Hamlin, of Maine, proposed the further inquiry to know what service that squadron had performed since it had been created. In support of his proposition, Mr. Hale said:

"He believed they were indebted to this administration for the
home squadron. The whole sixteen vessels which composed that
squadron were said to be necessary to protect the coasting
trade; and though the portion of the country from which he came
was deeply concerned in the coasting trade, yet he himself was
convinced that many of those vessels might be dispensed with.
If this information were laid before the House, they would have
something tangible on which to lay their hands, in the way of
retrenchment and reform. He wanted this information for the
purpose of pointing out to the House where an enormous expense
might be cut down, without endangering any of the interests of
the country. Gentlemen had talked about being prepared with a
sufficient navy to meet and contend with the naval power of
Great Britain; but had they any idea of the outlay which was
required to support such a navy? The expense of the navy of
Great Britain amounted to between eighty and a hundred millions
of dollars annually. We were not in want of such a great naval
establishment to make ourselves respected at home or abroad.
General Jackson alone had produced an impression upon one of
the oldest nations of Europe, which it would be impossible for
this administration to do with the assistance of all the navies
in the world."

Mr. Jared Ingersoll was in favor of retrenchment and economy, but thought the process ought to begin in the civil and diplomatic department--in the Congress itself, and in the expenses it allowed for multiplied missions abroad and incessant changes in the incumbents. With respect to abuses in the naval expenditures, he said:--

"He had no knowledge of his own on this subject; but he had
learned from a distinguished officer of the navy, that in
the navy-yards, in the equipment of ships, by the waste and
extravagance caused by allowing officers to rebuild ships when
they pleased, and the loss on the provisions of ships just
returned from sea, which have been taken or thrown away, the
greatest abuses have been practised, which have assisted in
swelling up the naval expenditures to their present enormous
amount."

Mr. Adams differed from Mr. Ingersoll in the scheme of beginning retrenchment on the civil list, and presented the army and the navy as the two great objects of wasteful expenditure, and the points at which reform ought to begin, and especially with retrenching this home squadron, for which he had voted in 1841, but now condemned. He said:

"The gentleman gave the House, undoubtedly, a great deal of
instruction as to the manner in which it should carry out
retrenchment and reform, and finally elect a President; but his
remarks did not happen to apply to the motion of the gentleman
from New Hampshire; for he led them away from that motion, and
told them, in substance, that it was not the nine million of
dollars asked for by the Secretary of the Navy--and he did not
know how much asked for the army--that was to be retrenched.
Oh, no! The army and the navy were not the great expenses of
this nation; it was not by curtailing the military and naval
expenditures that economy was to be obtained; but by beginning
with the two Houses of Congress. And what was the comparison,
to come to dollars and cents, between the expenses of that
House and the Navy Department? Why, the gentleman, with all his
exaggerating eloquence, had made the executive, legislative, and
judicial powers of the country, to cost at least two millions of
dollars; while the estimates for the navy were nine millions,
to enable our ships to go abroad and display the stripes and
stars. And for what purpose was it necessary to have this home
squadron? Was the great maritime power of the earth in such a
position towards us as to authorize us to expect a hostile
British squadron on our coasts? No; he believed not. Then
what was this nine millions of dollars wanted for? There was
a statement, two years ago, in the report of the Secretary
of the Navy, in which they were told that our present navy,
in comparison with that of Great Britain, was only as one to
eight--that is, that the British navy was eight times as large
as ours. Now, in that year eight millions of dollars was asked
for for the navy; the report of the present year asks for nine
millions. This report contained the principle that we must go
on to increase our navy until it is at least one-half as large
as that of Great Britain; and what, then, was the proportion
of additional expense we must incur to arrive at that result?
Why, four times eight are thirty-two; so that it will take an
annual expenditure of thirty-two millions to give us a navy
half as large as that of Great Britain. If, however, gentlemen
were to go on in this way, $32,000,000--nay, $50,000,000 would
not be enough to pay the expense of their navy. He expressed
his approval of the resolution of the gentleman from New
Hampshire, and his gratification that it had come from such a
quarter--a quarter which was so deeply interested in having a
due protection for their mercantile navy and their coasting
trade, by the establishment of a home squadron. At the time the
home squadron was first proposed, he was, himself, in favor of
it, and it was adopted with but very little opposition; and
the reason was, because the House did not understand it at
that time. It looked to a war with Great Britain. It looked
more particularly to a war with Great Britain (the honorable
gentleman was understood to say), provided she took the island
of Cuba. He saw no necessity for a large navy, unless it was to
insult other nations, by taking possession of their territory
in time of peace. What was the good, he asked, of a navy which
cost the country $9,000,000 a year, compared with what was done
there in the legislative department of the nation? He expressed
his ardent hope that the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Cave
Johnson], and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. McKay]--now
the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means--would persevere
in the same spirit that marked their conduct during the last
Congress, and still advocate reductions in the army and the
navy."

Mr. Hale replied to the several gentlemen who, without offering a word in favor of the utility of this domestic squadron, were endeavoring to keep it up; and who, without denying the great abuse and extravagance in the naval disbursements, were endeavoring to prevent their correction by starting smaller game--and that smaller game not to be pursued, and bagged, but merely started to prevent the pursuit of the great monster which was ravaging the fields. Thus:--

"He believed that the greatest abuses existed in every
department of the government, and that the extravagances of all
required correction. Look at the army of 8,000 men only, kept
up at an expense to the nation of $1,000 for each man. Was not
this a crying abuse that ought to be corrected? Why, if the
proposition had succeeded to increase the army to 20,000 men,
the expenditure at this rate would have been twenty millions
annually. If any gentleman knew of the existence of abuses, let
him bring them to the notice of the House, and he would vote
not only for the proper inquiry into them, but to apply the
remedy. In regard to this home squadron, he begged leave to
disclaim any of the suspicions entertained by the gentleman from
Massachusetts. In offering his resolution he had no reference to
Cuba, or any thing else suggested by the gentleman. He wanted
the House and the country to look at it as the Secretary of the
Navy presented it to their view. As to the pretence that it was
intended for the protection of the coasting trade, it was a most
idle one. He wished the gentlemen from Maine (the State most
largely interested in that trade) to say whether they needed any
such protection. He would answer for them, and say that they did
not. He himself lived among those who were extensively engaged
in the coasting trade, and part of his property was invested
in it. He could, therefore, speak with some knowledge on the
subject; and he hesitated not to say, that the idea of keeping
up this squadron for its protection was a most preposterous
and idle one. Sir, said he, the navy has been the pet child
of the nation, and, like all other pet children, has run away
with the whole patrimonial estate. If it were found that the
best interest of the country required the maintenance of the
home squadron, then he would go for it; but if it were found
to be utterly useless, as he believed, then he was decidedly
against it. But he would give this further notice; that he did
not mean to stop here; that when the appropriations should
come up, he intended to propose to limit those appropriations
to a sum sufficient only to support the squadron stationed in
the Mediterranean. It was entirely useless for this country to
endeavor to contend with monarchies in keeping up the pageantry
of a naval establishment."

The proposed inquiry produced no result, only ending in demonstrating what was well known to the older members, namely, the difficulty, and almost impossibility of introducing any reform, or economy into the administration of any department of the government unless the Executive takes the lead. And of this truth a striking instance occurred at this session and upon this subject. The executive government, that is to say, the President and his Secretary of the Navy had made a lawless expenditure of about $700,000 during the recess of Congress; and Congress under a moral duress, was compelled to adopt that expenditure as its own, and make it good. When the clause in the naval appropriation bill for covering this item, was under consideration, Mr. Ezra Dean, of Ohio, stood up and said:

"It was nothing less than a bill making appropriations to the
amount of $750,000 which had been expended by the department in
virtue of its own will and pleasure, and without the sanction
of any law whatever; and the House was called on to approve
this proceeding. He had supposed that any department which took
upon itself the power of expending the public money, without
authority of law, would have been subjected to the severest
rebuke of Congress. He had supposed that this would have been a
reform Congress, and that all the abuses of this administration
would be ferreted out and corrected; but in this he had been
grievously disappointed. He had endeavored to get the consent
of the House to take up the navy retrenchment bill, which would
correct all these abuses, but he had been mistaken; and so far
from being able to get the bill before the House, he had been
unable even to get the yeas and nays on the question of taking
it up. There was great reason for this. This Navy Department
had been for the last two years the great vortex which had
swallowed up two-thirds of the revenues of the government. In
1840, a law was passed that no money should be expended for the
building of ships without the express sanction of Congress; and
yet, in defiance of this law, the Navy Department had gone on
to build an iron steamship at Pittsburg, and six sloops-of-war;
and he was told that part of the appropriations in this bill
were to complete these vessels. Mr. D. then spoke of the utter
uselessness of these steamships on the western waters, and
referred to the number of ships that were now rotting for
want of use, both on the stocks and laid up in ordinary; and
particularly referred to the magnificent ship Delaware, which
had just returned from a cruise, and was dismantled, and laid
up to rot at Norfolk, while the department was clamorous for
building more ships. There were not only more ships now built
and building than could be used, but there were three times as
many officers as could be employed. There were 96 commanders,
with salaries of $3,500 a-year, while there was only employment
for 38 of them; and there were 68 captains, while there was
only employment for but 18. He then referred to the number of
officers waiting orders, and on leave of absence, and said
that the country would be astonished to learn, that for such
officers, the country was now paying $283,700 a year; and that,
by referring to the records of the Navy Department, it would
be found that for the last twenty years, more than half of the
officers of the navy were drawing their pay and emoluments
while at home, on leave of absence, or waiting orders. Mr. D.
spoke of many other abuses in the navy, which he said required
correction, and expressed his great regret that he had not been
able to get the House to act on his navy retrenchment bill."

Mr. McKay, of North Carolina, who was the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, whose duty it became to present this item in the appropriation bill, fully admitted its illegality and wastefulness; but plead the necessity of providing for its payment, as the money had been earned by work and labor done on the faith of the government, and to withhold payment would be a wrong to laborers, and no punishment to the officers who had occasioned the illegal expenditure. A high officer had done this wrong. He was ready to join in a vote of censure upon him: but to repudiate the debt, and leave laboring people without pay for their work and materials was what he could not do. And thus ended the session with sanctioning an abuse of $700,000 in one item in the navy, which session had opened with a manly attempt to correct some of its extravagances. And thus have ended all similar attempts since. A powerful combined interest pushes forward an augmented navy, without regard to any object but their own interest in it. First, the politicians who raise a clamor of war at the return of each presidential canvass, and a cry for ships to carry it on. Next, the naval officers, who are always in favor of more ships to give more commands. And, thirdly, the contractors who are to build these ships, and get rich upon their contracts. These three parties combine to build ships, and Congress becomes a helpless instrument in their hands. The friends of economy, and of a wise national policy, which prefers cruisers and privateers to ships of the line, may deliver their complaints in vain. Ship building, and ship rotting, goes on unchecked, and even with accelerated speed; and must continue to so go on until the enormity of the abuse produces a revulsion which, in curing the abuse may nearly kill the navy itself.