majority which indicates that the excellent results obtained in managing the propelling machinery of vessels of the Atlantic Fleet were due to navy-yard experience of the officers in charge of such machinery.

The other points raised by the majority in their "Statement B-4" are sufficiently well covered in the previous minority "Statement B-3," and do not seem to require further comment at this time, other than to invite particular attention to that portion of the testimony of the Secretary of the Navy before the House Naval Committee, in which specific questions were asked as to the propriety of having naval constructors as managers of manufacturing departments, and the replies of the Secretary of the Navy to such inquiries. Very pertinent testimony upon this point will be found on pages 872, 873, and 874 of Hearing No. 60 before the Committee on Naval Affairs, House of Representatives, February 4, 1909.

In this connection attention is invited to the fact that naval constructors are selected, as has been stated by a former Secretary of the Navy, "from the most promising graduates of the Naval Academy," and have subsequently been given very thorough techincal training at colleges of the highest standing. The character of this training and the method of selecting officers have been fully set forth in reports of the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair, and have been alluded to in "Statement B-3" of the minority.

The recommendation of the majority that a line officer, and only a line officer, should be eligible as manager of the manufacturing department of a navy-yard is illogical, and if their position were correct would naturally result in changing our method of training and keeping technical officers at sea the greater part of their lives, instead of training them in their own particular duties on shore, as is the invariable practice of successful private shipbuilding establishments. The necessarily limited tenure of office of the manager of the manufacturing department, if chosen from the line, would seriously militate against the efficiency of that department, since nothing is more fatal to economical and efficient administration of a manufacturing department, no matter where situated, than frequent change in the head thereof. If it should be suggested that the "line officer manager" would have a long term of such duty, such a condition would involve the renunciation by that officer of his ambition to excel in his own particular branch. In its "Statement B-3" the minority has treated this subject at greater length, and does not consider it necessary to comment further in this connection, except to quote from two hearings of the Secretary of the Navy before the House Committee on Naval Affairs.

Extract from testimony of the Secretary of the Navy before the House Committee on Naval Affairs, January 28, 1908:

"Mr. BATES. In your opinion, Mr. Secretary, is there not a good deal of incongruity in taking a man who has been educated at Annapolis, and who has been treading the deck of a vessel, and putting him immediately in charge of a manufacturing plant, and that only for two years?

"Mr. NEWBERRY. I would rather be excused from criticising. [Laughter.] I am willing to volunteer my opinion on any subject, but I would rather not be asked to criticise.

"Mr. BATES. I appreciate your situation.

"Mr. NEWBERRY. I will say, though, that the thought can not help occurring to anybody that is interested that the present custom probably came about because in the nature of things a naval officer can not be expected to remain constantly at sea. He must have

some time ashore. It might be just as well, in some cases, if they were provided with a nice home up on the mountains somewhere where they could rest. A great many of them are efficient, but some of them are simply 'ashore.'"

And again, before the Senate Naval Committee on February 1, 1909, the Secretary of the Navy made the following statement:

"It is a very radical change of duty for a man to step from the quarter-deck of a ship under military administration into a machine shop full of first-class civilian machinists and be capable of changing his entire nature and training from military administration on a ship to the civilian administration of a machine shop, and it has not always been advantageous to have it done."

The minority does not question the capacity of certain selected officers of the line to discharge almost any duty in a most creditable manner, but this is because they are officers of exceptional ability and not because they are line officers. To assume, however, that the average officer of the line of the rank of captain or commander is, by the nature of his training, better adapted to manage a large manufacturing establishment than officers whose preliminary training has been identical with that of the line officer, and whose original training has been supplemented by extensive post-graduate education, and whose service has been continuously devoted to technical subjects, without too frequent interruption of periods of sea duty, is to assume that the man who has been thoroughly trained in his profession is less valuable than a man whose training has been more or less superficial and intermittent.

The minority is of the opinion that the organization of manufacturing departments as provided under existing regulations, general orders, and explanatory memoranda is entirely logical, and if given a fair trial will prove its efficiency and will result eventually in very considerable economies being effected.

The minority therefore strongly recommends that no change whatever be made in the general character of the existing organization of manufacturing departments at navy-yards until such organizations have been given a thorough trial under normal conditions.

The minority furthermore recommends that naval officers of junior grades other than naval constructors be given opportunity to serve in the manufacturing departments of navy-yards, in order that they may obtain the experience which, in the opinion of the majority, is so essential for their proper development as seagoing officers of the

line.

The minority has already pointed out in "Statement B-3" that such service can not properly be regarded as in any sense contrary to any existing provision of law. If, however, it should be held otherwise, the minority recommends that immediate steps be taken to provide for the revision of the law in such manner as will permit the personnel of the navy to perform the work of the navy in the most efficient manner possible.

W. L. CAPPS,

Chief Constructor, U. S. Navy.

The Paymaster-General entirely concurs in the foregoing dissenting report of the Chief Constructor, and, in addition thereto, he begs to point out how this recent bureau and yard consolidation has been historically paralleled in the record of the Pay Corps of the Navy.

When Mr. Whitney became Secretary of the Navy in March, 1885, he found each bureau with its separate stores just as they had, previous to the recent consolidation, separate shops. Bids were opened by the several bureaus and the purchases were made by the paymasters upon the orders of the chiefs of those bureaus, stores were retained independently and indefinitely under the custody of the bureau representatives at the yards, and though one bureau-say the Bureau of Equipment-might have a large quantity of tools and hardware on hand bought from equipment appropriations, the Bureau of Construction and Repair, which needed some of these, could not obtain them and had to buy them anew. The result was accumulations, which were selfishly used by each bureau for its own purposes alone, and not for the general good of the navy. Mr. Whitney determined to consolidate the functions of storekeeping, of purchases of all stores, and the keeping of all accounts under a single bureau, just as Mr. Newberry determined to concentrate under another bureau a like operation as regards the several shops in the navy-yards. As was done by the late Secretary in shop consolidation, in the same manner Mr. Whitney commenced the preliminary concentration of stores some time before the appearance of the order. On December 4, 1886, General Order No. 355 was issued. This was explained by subsequent circulars during the same month, exactly as Mr. Newberry issued General Order No. 9 and the circulars following it. Just as Mr. Newberry consolidated the industrial functions of the yards under the Bureau of Construction and Repair, so Mr. Whitney consolidated all the storekeeping under the Bureau of Provisions and Clothing (as the present Bureau of Supplies and Accounts was then called).

Then, as now, as the undersigned knows from personal experience, the same arguments were made against the consolidation, under a so-called nontechnical and nonmilitary bureau, of all stores, the knowledge of which was claimed to be necessary to the line and other officers of the navy. It was vigorously pointed out that paymasters were not fitted by training and experience to do this work, and that a very important element in the educative training of other officers would be taken away from them; that it would be extravagant, that it would cause delays and interference, and that the general storekeeper (as the storekeeping paymaster was denominated) was unfitted to make the proper selections and keep the stock in proper condition; that this could only be done in the main-by line officers. Then, as now, there were stumbles and alterations (for instance, the general storekeeper system, as it was called, was at first extended to ships, and it was found that the time was not ripe for such development); many stores, such as the nautical and technical instruments, flags, books, etc., of equipment were held to be exempt from the control of paymasters and still remained with the representatives of that bureau. But in 1895 these articles were turned over to the general storekeeper, and the undersigned has yet to hear of any complaint that they are not properly cared for.

The antagonism extended through years, but in the face of all arguments, in the face of temporary failures, and in the face of a

practically united opposition of the whole navy, with a Pay Corps then composed very largely of men who had fought through the civil war, who had passed the meridian of life, and many of whom were opposed, this consolidated-store system under the paymasters, with all its initial defects, has received the support of every Secretary of the Navy from Mr. Whitney down to the present day, and now many of the very men who in 1887, and for a decade thereafter, were so violently in opposition to it are its strongest supporters; and it is not shown or claimed that the efficiency of the navy has suffered; that the education of the line officers has been defective, or that they have to-day any less knowledge of the stores and material which they use afloat than they would have had under a continuance of the old, individual-bureau system of purchase and separate storehouses. E. B. ROGERS,

Paymaster-General, U. S. Navy.

APPENDIX C.

PRECEPT OF BOARD.

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., March 25, 1909.

SIR: A board is hereby appointed, consisting of yourself as senior member; RearAdmirals William S. Cowles, U. S. Navy, retired; Richard Wainwright, U. S. Navy; William P. Potter, U. S. Navy; and Newton E. Mason, U. S. Navy; Engineer in Chief John K. Barton, U. S. Navy, retired; Paymaster-General Eustace B. Rogers, U. S. Navy; Chief Constructor Washington L. Capps, U.S. Navy; Civil Engineer Richard C. Hollyday, U. S. Navy; and Captain Hugo Osterhaus, U. S. Navy, as members, and Commander John M. Poyer, U. S. Navy, retired, recorder, to convene at the Navy Department, Washington, D. C., at 10 a. m., March 29, 1909, for the purpose of making recommendations regarding a revision of certain portions of the United States Navy Regulations, edition of 1909, copies of which are inclosed herewith.

The first chapter of these regulations was rewritten after the remainder of the text went to press; it is conflicting in certain particulars, and the provisions of the following chapters require modification in order to conform with the changed duties assigned to the different bureaus of the Navy Department.

The board will make such recommendations as are deemed necessary or desirable to reconcile the existing discrepancies in Chapter I and to cause the provisions of the subsequent chapters to conform to the duties as therein outlined.

In taking up the questions submitted to the board, as indicated above, the department desires that the board shall confine itself chiefly to recommendations that will reconcile conflicting instructions that have been incorporated in the Regulations and in the orders issued to the commandants of navy-yards regarding reorganization of bureaus and consolidation of work.

It is not the intention of the department to depart from the oneral plan of consolidation and reorganization as laid down by the regulations and the general orders issued until this plan has been given a fair test. There will probably be found after trial that many improvements are desirable and necessary for the efficiency of the navy in the methods as tentatively laid down. It is the intention of the department, after a sufficient time has been given to test the plan in its present general form, to order a board of officers to make such recommendations as may be found to be desirable.

At the same time, it is not intended that the board shall refrain now from making any recommendation that will in its opinion increase the efficiency of the service under the present plan of reorganization and consolidation; and if the board believes that the present plan may be improved in its details, recommendation will be made accordingly.

The department also forwards herewith, for the consideration of the board, the following papers:@

(1) A communication from the Bureau of Yards and Docks relative to design and construction of public works.

a Not reproduced here.

(2) A communication from the Bureau of Equipment relative to electrical appliances. (3) A communication from the same bureau relative to coal and water, etc.

(4) A communication from the equipment officer, U. S. S. Salem, relative to duties and responsibilities regarding the coal and water received on board that vessel. (5) A copy of General Order No. 9.

(6) A copy of General Order No. 13.

(7) A copy of Memorandum for Commandants, dated January 25, 1909.

(8) A copy of Memorandum for Commandants, dated February 18, 1909.

Proceed to Washington, D. C., report at the Navy Department, and assemble the board at the time, date, and place specified.

The members and recorder of the board have been directed to report to you for this duty.

Upon the completion of this duty you will submit a report in the premises to the department, return to Newport, R. I., and resume your present duties.

It is desirable that the board submit its recommendations at 'as early a date as practicable.

This is in addition to your present duties.

Rear-Admiral CHARLES S. SPERRY, U. S. N.,

G. v. L. MEYER,
Secretary of the Navy.

Naval War College, Newport, R. I.

APPENDIX E.

DISPOSITION OF PAPERS.

1. A communication from the Bureau of Yards and Docks relative to design and construction of public works. Returned herewith.

2. A communication from the Bureau of Equipment relative to electrical appliances and accompanying endorsement by the Bureau of Ordnance. Returned herewith. 3. A communication from the Bureau of Equipment relative to coal and water. Returned herewith.

4. A communication from the equipment officer, U. S. S. Salem, relative to coal and water. Returned herewith.

5. General Order No. 9. Returned herewith.

6. General Order No. 13. Returned herewith.

7. A copy of Memorandum for Commandants, dated January 25, 1909. Returned herewith.

8. A copy of Memorandum for Commandants, dated February 18, 1909. Returned herewith.

9. Memorandum from Lieut. Commander Chandler relative to the revision of the Navy Regulations. Withdrawn by the department's letter No. 963-379, of April 30, 1909, and returned by endorsement dated May 4.

10. A communication from the pay officer of the Idaho relative to checkage of pay of officers and men for loss, damage, destruction of public property. Withdrawn by the department's letter No. 963-379, of April 30, 1909, and returned by endorsement dated May 4.

11. Communication from the commandant, navy-yard, Puget Sound, requesting information as to the proper titles of signed papers. Withdrawn by the department's letter No. 936-379, of April 30, 1909, and returned by endorsement dated May 4.

12. Communication from the major-general, commandant, U. S. M. C., requesting certain changes in the regulations affecting marines. Withdrawn by the department's letter No. 936-379, of April 30, 1909, and returned by endorsement dated May 4, 1909.

13. Communication from the commander in chief, U. S. Atlantic Fleet, relative to certain conflicts in the Navy Regulations. Withdrawn by the department's letter No. 936-379, of April 30, 1909, and returned by endorsement dated May 4, 1909.

14. Communication relative to Circular No. 1, entitled “An association to promote the study of naval administration." Withdrawn by the department's letter No. 936-379, of April 30, 1909, and returned by endorsement dated May 4, 1909.

15. Letter from the commandant, navy-yard, Philadelphia, relative to circular letter from the Bureau of Construction and Repair, to Naval Constructor Stahl, on the subject of standing job orders, with enclosure and endorsement, not forwarded through the department. Withdrawn by the department and returned April 27.

16. Communication from the Bureau of Ordnance, inviting attention to omission of paragraph 6, article 7, Navy Regulations, 1905, from the edition of 1909. Returned herewith.