It is safe to say that there are as many ideas in the navy relative to what the service requires in personnel legislation as there are officers and men in the service. The personnel act of 1899 remedied a very serious condition of affairs by bringing more rapid promotion and by amalgamating the line and engineer officers. The act improved the conditions as they existed in 1898, but all of us realize that another hump is forming. To create a system that will take care of this hump and permit a healthy flow of promotion without doing injustice to the individual is indeed a hard problem to solve. In attempting to do justice to the individual, a large and costly retired list is liable to result and the mere thought of such a list is sufficient to kill any remedial legislation.
The problem, therefore, is to maintain a healthy flow of promotion, be just to each individual concerned and keep the cost of the retired list down. The question certainly is difficult of solution and in solving it every officer is prone not to think so much of "What is best for the service?" as "How does it affect me?"
Suppose the total displacement as given in the present bill before Congress be considered. This displacement of 1,200,000 tons used as a basis would result in the following:
Number of enlisted personnel 60,000
Number of line officers 3,000
The 3000 line officers would be distributed as follows, according to the bill:
30 Flag officers {
1 Admiral.
5 Vice-admirals.
24 Rear-admirals.
120 Captains.
150 Commanders.
390 Lieutenant-commanders.
900 Lieutenants.
1410 {
Lieutenants (j. g.).
Ensigns.
Midshipmen (all at Academy).
____
3000
This number in each grade would result if 3000 line officers and midshipmen were in the service. Such is not the case, however. An examination of the register of the navy shows that the number of line officers, exclusive of extra numbers, amounts to about 2350, of which approximately 700 are midshipmen at the Naval Academy. If this number, 2350, were distributed in the proportion given above there would result:
23 Flag officers {
1 Admiral
4 Vice-admirals.
18 Rear-admirals.
94 Captains.
118 Commanders.
303 Lieutenant-commanders.
703 Lieutenants.
1105{
Lieutenants (j. g.).
Ensigns.
Midshipmen (all at Academy).
As ensigns cannot be promoted until after seven years' service, there would be only 650 lieutenants instead of 705 and there would be no lieutenants (j. g.). This would make the list top heavy and this condition is taken care of in Section II, which provides:
That until the full authorized strength of the grades above ensign and below admiral of the navy shall have been once attained, the actual strength of said grades on July I of any year shall be distributed in the proportions as required by section four of this act, down to and including lieutenants, together with a proportionate number of 12 lieutenants (junior grade), a fractional surplus in any higher grade to be neglected in that grade and carried to the grade below: Provided, that the authorized strength of any of said grades at the date of passage of this act shall not be hereby reduced. The promotions of officers for total length of service, as required by section. ten preceding, shall begin on July 1 following the passage of this act, and shall continue on the first day of each fiscal year thereafter. The numbers in the several grades determined by the requirements of this act for any year shall obtain throughout the fiscal year, and vacancies occurring during the year shall, subject to the provisions of section ten preceding regarding the promotion of ensigns, be filled in order of seniority from the grade below.
It therefore becomes necessary to consider the actual number of officers on the list from rear-admiral down to and including those officers who have completed seven years service. This amounted to '186 officers on July 1, 1911. The proportion to be used in considering this number of 1186 would be: 1 flag officer, 4 captains, 5 commanders, 13 lieutenant-commanders, 30 lieutenants and 12 lieutenants (j. g.).
This would result in the following:
22 Flag Officers {
1 Admiral
3 Vice-admirals.
18 Rear-admirals.*
Senior in grade.
72 Captains C J Boush.
112 Commanders* G W. Kline.
237 Lieutenant-Commanders Y Stirling, Jr.
547 Lieutenants B. A. Long.
196 Lieutenants (j. g.) W T. Mallison.
* Present number cannot be reduced.
In addition to the above, there would be about 460 ensigns. There would be no midshipmen at sea.
To fill all the vacancies in the line by this bill, if the enlisted personnel were to be increased to 60,000, would require 500 more midshipmen to be appointed this next year to the Naval Academy than would ordinarily be the case. This is taken care of in Section 7, which provides that no entering class shall be more than to percentum of the authorized strength of the line. Therefore, with the authorized strength of the line as 3000, no entering class can be greater than 300. This would spread the increase over a term of years and prevent abnormally large classes.
The provisions of retirement incorporated in this bill will not be enforced for at least fourteen years, and in a few years after it is enforced, large numbers of retirements will result. Some provision must be made to keep the retired list actively engaged so as to be of active use to the government, and further on in this paper is suggested a method of actively employing the retired list without interfering with shore duty assignments for the active list. The compulsory retirement to give vacancies should take place before promotion and not after, as it is manifest that any officer advanced may be retired immediately, and it is evident that in time of war such officer would not be fit to execute the duties of his advanced rank were he called into service. This would result in retirements of lieutenants and a clause to this effect is required, but their retired pay should not be below $1000 per annum. A retired officer serving on active duty should of course receive the pay and allowances of his grade.
By this bill, an officer, unless sooner promoted to fill vacancies, must be promoted:
To Lieutenant (j. g.) after 7 years service
To Lieutenant " 10 " “
To Lieut.-commander " 18 " “
To Commander " 24 " “
To Captain " 37 " “
Taking eighteen years as the average entrance age of those line officers at present in the service, the average ages of promotion would be:
To Lieutenant (j. g.) 25 years of age
To Lieutenant 28 “ “ “
To Lieut.-commander 36 “ “ “
To Commander 42 “ “ “
To Captain 47 “ “ “
To Rear-Admiral 55 “ “ “
Any officer of the grade of rear-admiral selected for retirement should be retired with pay and rank of captain, unless he has served as rear-admiral as described later on in this paper.
It cheapens the grade of rear-admiral to have officers retired in this grade who have not performed the actual duties required of that grade and who have never commanded a fleet, squadron, division or even any kind of craft afloat.
A study of conditions as they existed in 1898, 1899, 19O0, 1905 and 1910, may be of interest. Below are tables showing the conditions of each grade in the line in the years named above. In 1898 and 1899 the engineer officers are counted with the line relative
to numbers, but line officers only are considered in computing ages, etc.
FLAG OFFICERS, LINE.
In 1898 and 1899, rear-admirals and commodores are considered in one group in first table and in separate groups in next two tables:
January 1 1898 1899 1900 1905 1910
Number 16 17 18 26 28
Average flag service........ 4.6 yrs. 4.9 yrs. 5.0 yrs. 3.2 yrs. 2.3 yrs.
REAR-ADMIRALS.
| No. | Average service as Rear-Admiral. | Average service as Commodore. | Average total Flag service. |
|
| Years. | Years. | Years. |
1898 | 6 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 4.2 |
1899 | 7 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 4.4 |
COMMODORES.
1898 | 10 | … | … | 5.0 |
1899 | 10 | … | … | 5.4 |
CAPTAINS.
Jan 1st of year. | No. in line. | No in eng. corps. | Total. | Age of oldest. | Age of youngest. | Average age. | No. of years. to pass through grade. |
1898 | 45 | 11 | 56 | 58.9 | 51.4 | 55.2 | 10.5 |
1899 | 45 | 11 | 56 | 59.9 | 52.4 | 56.2 | 7.8 |
1900 | 70 | … | 70 | 60.9 | 53.3 | 57.1 | 7.8 |
1905 | 86-a | … | 86 | 60.6 | 54.1 | 57.3 | 5.8 |
1910 | 81-a | … | 81 | 61.2 | 51.5 | 56.3 | 3.6 |
July 1, 1911. |
|
|
| 60.9 | 47.7 | 54.3 | 4.0 |
- 70 allowed by law.
COMMANDERS.
1898 | 85 | 15 | 100 | 52.4 | 47.7 | 49.7 | 6.5 |
1899 | 85 | 15 | 100 | 52.3 | 48.1 | 50.2 | 5.7 |
1900 | 112 | … | 112 | 53.3 | 42.0 | 47.6 | 2.9 |
1905 | 122-b | … | 122 | 50.9 | 38.0 | 44.4 | 5.8 |
1910 | 119-b | … | 119 | 43.5 | 31.6 | 37.6 | 4.5 |
July 1, 1911. |
|
|
| 41.0 | 31.3 | 36.2 | 5.1 |
- 112 allowed by law.
LIEUTENANT-COMMANDERS.
1898 | 74 | 8 | 82 | 52.4 | 47.7 | 49.7 | 6.5 |
1899 | 74 | 1 | 75 | 52.3 | 48.1 | 50.2 | 5.7 |
1900 | 170 | … | 170 | 53.3 | 42.0 | 47.6 | 2.9 |
1905 | 199-c | … | 199 | 50.9 | 38.0 | 44.4 | 5.8 |
1910 | 211-d | … | 211 | 43.5 | 31.6 | 37.6 | 4.5 |
July 1, 1911. |
|
|
| 41.0 | 31.3 | 36.2 | 5.1 |
- 191 allowed by law.
- 200 allowed by law.
LIEUTENANTS.
Jan 1st of year. | No. in line. | No in eng. corps. | Total. | Age of oldest. | Age of youngest. | Average age. | No. of years. to pass through grade. |
1898 | 250 | 72 | 322 | 50.5 | 34.6 | 42.6 | 21.5 |
1899 | 250 | 69 | 319 | 50.6 | 34.9 | 42.7 | 19.0 |
1900 | 300 | … | 300 | 44.7 | 28.0 | 36.4 | 0.9 |
1905 | 343-e | … | 343 | 41.0 | 24.9 | 33.0 | 5.8 |
1910 | 319-f | … | 319 | 35.6 | 24.2-g | 29.9 | 6.0 |
July 1, 1911. |
|
|
| 35.1 | 24.2-g | 29.7 | 6.0 |
- 336 allowed by law.
- 350 allowed by law.
- Approximate age, no data at hand.
A re-arrangement of above tables will show the following points:
No. of years to pass through grade of | Year. | July 1, 1911 | ||||
1889 | 1899 | 1900 | 1905 | 1910 | ||
Captain | 10.5 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 5.8 | 3.6 | 4.0 |
Commander | 13.0 | 12.5 | 6.6 | 5.1 | 4.0 | 3.0 |
Lieut.-commander | 6.5 | 5.7 | 2.9 | 5.8 | 4.5 | 5.1 |
Lieutenant | 21.5 | 19.0 | 0.9 | 5.8 | 6.0 | 6.0 |
Average age in grade of | Year. | July 1, 1911 | ||||
1889 | 1899 | 1900 | 1905 | 1910 | ||
Captain | 55.2 | 56.2 | 57.1 | 57.3 | 56.3 | 54.3 |
Commander | 55.6 | 55.4 | 55.2 | 52.9 | 47.7 | 44.9 |
Lieut.-commander | 49.7 | 50.2 | 47.6 | 44.4 | 37.6 | 36.2 |
Lieutenant | 42.6 | 42.7 | 36.4 | 33.0 | 29.9 | 29.7 |
Number of line officers (line officers and engineer officers included together for 1898 and 1899):
No. of officers. | 1889 | 1899 | 1900 | 1905 | 1910 |
Allowed. | 921 | 911 | 1,020 | … | … |
Actual. | 893 | 872 | 881 | 959 | 1,152 |
The enlisted personnel allowed by law on January 1 of year indicated was as follows:
1889 | 1899 | 1900 | 1905 | 1910 |
11,750 | 13,750 | 20,000 | 34,000 | 47,500 |
Number of line officers per 100 men of enlisted personnel (only actual number of line officers considered and including engineer officers with line officers in 1898 and 1899):
1889 | 1899 | 1900 | 1905 | 1910 |
7.6 | 6.3 | 4.4 | 2.8 | 2.4 |
A study of the above tables shows that officers of flag rank held such rank twice as long in 1898 and 1899 as in 1910, that is, the average age of flag officers has materially increased since 1898. The average age of captains increased to 57.3 years in 1905, but has decreased to 54.3 years on July I, 1911. The average age of commanders has decreased from 55.6 years in 1898 to 44.9 years on July 1, 1911. The average age of lieutenant-commanders has decreased from 50.2 years in 1899 to 36.2 years July 1, 1911, a decided change. The average age of lieutenants has materially decreased, decreasing from 42.7 years in 1899 to 29.7 years July 1, 1911. Therefore, the result of the Personnel Act of 1899 has been to materially decrease the ages in grades below captain, but in the flag grade the average has increased.
The length of service in each grade has decreased, giving a healthy flow of promotion, but this healthy flow cannot continue with rapid increase of officers. Also, under the present conditions, it is impossible to have rear-admirals with a sufficient length of service in that grade.
On January 1, 1912, there will be approximately 140 lieutenants (j. g.). On January 1, 1913, this number will be increased to approximately 205, and on January 1, 1914, to 390, and in 1915 to about 500. On January 1, 1919, there will be about 950 lieutenants (j. g.).
It is apparent that the navy is going back to the deplorable condition existing in 1898, with lieutenants so years old.
There is a general apathy throughout the service to the conditions confronting the commissioned personnel. Those who are above the rank of lieutenant, junior grade, do not fear marking time and this creates a general desire that things take their course. This is bad, as the best way to cure the service of the evils of a hump is to avoid a hump from forming.
The present bill before Congress does this, but meets with considerable opposition in the service and in Congress. Some of the opposition in the service is due to the fact that those maintaining the opposition are just naturally "again the government," but most of the opposition is real and earnest. Very few in the service are in sympathy with the clause in the Personnel Act of 1899 allowing an officer retired by the plucking board to retire with advanced rank. This principle was fair in 1899, when officers of the lieutenant grade and above were so old, but this condition in the junior grades no longer holds good. Its absurdity under present conditions was shown at the last plucking when an officer only 40.8 years old, in excellent health, was retired with the rank of captain, thereby receiving $3750 per annum the rest of his life, after only 25 years service. The greatest service opposition to the
bill now before Congress is due to the fact that there is no really just way in which an officer may be selected out. The personal element may be so strong as to cause an officer to be selected out unjustly on one-third pay. If the service could be sure that only the least efficient would be plucked, the strongest part of service opposition probably would disappear.
The opposition in the service to the present bill, therefore, embraces the conditions:
(a) No system of plucking in existence that has the confidence of the service relative to being just and fair to all concerned.
(b) Plucking an officer after 18 years service with small pay.
The opposition in Congress arises from three sources as follows:
(c) A feeling that able-bodied men capable of doing work will be paid by the government for doing nothing.
(d) The cost of the retired list will increase, although it will decrease per capita.
(e) The opposition of the service to the bill bringing influence to bear.
There are, therefore, five conditions to be met before the opposition of the service and of Congress can be eliminated. Before going any further, attention should be invited to the remarks on Navy Personnel Reform, recently compiled by the Department, from which the following paragraph is quoted:
Objection is sometimes made to the retirement of able-bodied officers. This in itself might be considered objectionable, but if there is no increase of total cost, and if there is great gain of efficiency, should the objection be regarded as valid? Moreover all such officers form a reserve in time of war. Some countries go to considerable expense to create such a reserve. With us this reserve would cost nothing. Here is a very strong argument in favor of the method, apart from the very material advantages that are the chief object.
The reserve described above is a latent reserve and would cost a great deal when retired pay is considered. Why not have an active reserve? Our naval militia is hard pressed for proper training and our training stations for apprentice seamen have to depend on warrant officers and chief petty officers in drilling the men. The reserve mentioned above could be utilized with great advantage to the service by being actively engaged in the duties of instructing and training the naval militia and in training the apprentice seamen. The resultant expansion of the naval militia probably would keep all the reserve actively engaged.
To come back to the causes of the two objections by the service and the three by Congress, the five causes must be met to produce cohesion and, therefore, each of the five objections, with a suggestion for removing same, will be considered below.
Service objection due to condition "a," that is, a fair and just system of plucking. This condition requires a decided change, but no legislation is needed for it. The reform can be made by the Department without act of Congress.
Efficiency reports, although better graded now than in the past, give only an approximate idea of the worth of an officer. In filling responsible assignments, the Department wants to know the relative efficiency of each of the officers so as to pick the one best fitted for an important post.
At present, in selecting an officer for an assignment, the officers on duty at the Department may be consulted so as to make as good a selection as possible, but in this case an officer not known to these officers at the Department would be overlooked. Not only will the below-described system keep the Secretary of the Navy informed as to the service estimate of a man, and therefore the most correct estimate, but it will also prove invaluable in selecting out, reflecting as it does the opinion of the whole service, which opinion will be just about correct. The system will also eliminate personal influence, politics and any personal ill feeling relative to an officer in selecting out and will give the examining board a fair and square idea of an officer's value to the service.
This system is illustrated as follows: By March is of each year the "Register of the Commissioned and Warrant Officers of the United States Navy and Marine Corps" of the preceding January 1 will be carefully studied by each rear-admiral and captain on the active list. As a result of this system reports will be made by each rear-admiral and captain as follows: Each rear-admiral on the active list will report on the captains and commanders. Each captain will report on commanders.
In making these reports, the officers must each make out his own report without assistance from others and must certify on submitting the report that it is made out in accordance with his belief and that he has consulted no one to assist him in making out the report, swearing to this by signing an oath, which oath is part of the form of the report and must be signed to make the report valid.
Below is illustrated how the rear-admirals report on the captains.
The below list (for example) shows the active list of captains as appearing in the register for January, 19—. Only ten fictitious names appear, as such number is sufficient to explain the idea.
Captains. Secret number assigned by Department
(assigned by board after reports are received).
1 John Horace Adams 7
2 Henry Louis Smith 8
3 Benjamin Arthur O'Connor 9
4 Albert Herbert Ford 10
5 Richard Henry Jones 1
6 Thomas Ralph Butler 2
7 Joseph Charles Foster 3
8 Clarence James Fisher 4
9 Robert Edward Reyburn 5
10 George William Martin 6
A rear-admiral, looking over this list and studying it, will submit, for example, his estimate of the ten captains by arranging their names in the order of value as follows:
1 G. W. Martin.
2 B. A. O'Connor.
3 H. L. Smith.
4 C. J. Fisher.
5 J. C. Foster.
6 R. E. Reyburn.
7 R. H. Jones.
8 J. H. Adams.
As the rear-admiral concerned has no personal knowledge of the abilities of Captains A. H. Ford and T. R. Butler, he does not name them in his report. As all rear-admirals report on the captains, Captains A. H. Ford and T. R. Butler are bound to be reported on, however.
A board of officers, sworn to secrecy, meeting at the Department, then assembles the reports, using only the number assigned by the Department and using no names. The numbers assigned by the Department are really assigned by this board of three officers and the number assigned to each officer is kept secret. Suppose, then, the result of averaging the report gives the following table, using the secret numbers as stated above.
Secret No. Average standing.
8 1.68
6 1.90
2 2.30
9 2.85
3 3.20
10 3.60
4 4.70
1 5.80
7 6.40
5 7.50
The final relative standing of the captains would, therefore, be:
Secret No. Standing.
8 1
6 2
2 3
9 4
3 5
10 6
4 7
1 8
7 9
5 10
in case it were required to select out three captains, the Selecting-Out Board would naturally select out the captains assigned secret numbers 5, 7 and 1. If, however, secret numbers 4 and 1 are a tie, the board would have before it all remarks that appear on the records of 4 and 1 and would have to use its discretion in selecting out either 1 or 4.
In selecting out lieutenant-commanders and lieutenants a different system will have to be employed, but the secret number idea would still be employed.
All commanding or senior officers reporting on lieutenant-commanders, lieutenants, lieutenants (j. g.) and ensigns must be thoroughly conscientious in making efficiency reports. A weak officer is liable to give perfect or nearly perfect marks to the officers serving under him and thus give the officer higher marks than he deserves; or, due to personal reasons, is liable to give marks lower than deserved. A constant supervision over all reports by the Department will probably correct this evil. Moreover, the officers making reports are constantly shifted, so that a general average will be very near right. Therefore, the following system could be employed relative to selecting out lieutenant-commanders and lieutenants.
The fitness reports of every lieutenant-commander and of every lieutenant with fifteen years service to his credit will be considered for the five years previous to March 31 of the year in which the selection is made. A board of three officers, sworn to secrecy, will compile the result of all reports, the query "value to the service " being added to present fitness reports and the mark given to this query being used as a basis for the compilation. The board will arrange the list of lieutenant-commanders and lieutenants of over eighteen years service in accordance with the final average of each officer for the last five years and submit the two reports (one for lieutenant-commanders and one for lieutenants) to the Selecting-Out Board, the board settling the question of ties in the same manner as in the cases of captains and commanders.
The board of three officers arranging the secret list for captains should be rear-admirals, the board for commanders should be captains, and the board for lieutenant-commanders and lieutenants should be commanders. In this way no officer will get a secret line on his seniors, nor will he be working out his own relative standing.
In the past a great deal of criticism has been made on the system of forced retirements at present in effect. The greatest criticism is that personal dislikes enter strongly in selecting those to be retired. Although few believe that a member of the board would allow his dislikes or personal enmities to influence him in the discharge of his duties, there is no doubt that human nature is prone to faults and it may be that a member or members of the board may be swayed accordingly. The system described above in detail will do away with personal likes and dislikes of the board and will eliminate favoritism, an essential requirement.
Criticism may be made that a superior may report on a junior in accordance with his knowledge of the junior years past. This may be true and for this reason no captain or commander should be reported on unless the reporting officer has had official relations with such in the ten years previous, or else has a thorough knowledge of the abilities of such officer from mutual associations in the last ten years.
This system should be applied to the staff corps, the directors being reported on by the chief of bureau and assistant chief of bureau of their corps plus the senior directors numbering 20% of such grade, the 20% making the report on the remaining 80. The inspectors will be reported on by the directors and passed assistants by the directors and inspectors. This, however, can be better arranged by each corps developing its own system, as the duties are such that frequently no senior is able to report on a junior.
In the Marine Corps, however, such a system is applicable except in the case of colonels. It is, therefore, better that the Marine Corps devise a system that will enable reports on colonels to be made.
This system will probably eradicate opposition (a) of the service, but opposition (b) will have to be settled by act of Congress. It is, therefore, suggested that the act to employ retired officers on active duty be re-enacted but modified to meet the requirements outlined as follows:
Officers, when selected for retirement, will have their choice between the graded pay of the present Personnel Act before Congress, or active duty ashore, while, on the retired list, until they will have completed thirty years service, when they will no longer be employed and will receive three-fourths of the pay of their grade. Retired officers will serve at training stations, on general courts-martial duty and with naval militia organizations with officers on the active list, but officers on the active list of the same grade will take precedence over retired officers.
Below is given a table, showing the strength of the Naval Militia on January 1, 1910. This strength should be increased fourfold.
STRENGTH OF NAVAL MILITIA (ABOUT 107 DIVISIONS) JAN. 1, 1910.
State. | Commissioned officers. | Warrant officers. | Petty officers. | Men. | Total. |
California | 44 | 6 | 107 | 428 | 585 |
Connecticut | 16 | 5 | 42 | 161 | 224 |
District of Columbia | 14 | … | 50 | 93 | 157 |
Georgia | 3 | … | 6 | 38 | 47 |
Illinois | 50 | … | 114 | 473 | 637 |
Indiana | 18 | … | 41 | 125 | 184 |
Louisiana | 46 | 3 | 76 | 477 | 602 |
Maine | 3 | … | 16 | 50 | 59 |
Maryland | 17 | 5 | 110 | 162 | 294 |
Massachusetts | 40 | … | 115 | 370 | 525 |
Michigan | 41 | … | 66 | 233 | 340 |
Minnesota | 11 | … | 17 | 106 | 134 |
Missouri | 10 | 1 | 18 | 77 | 106 |
New Jersey | 23 | 2 | 65 | 260 | 350 |
New York | 52 | … | 90 | 678 | 820 |
North Carolina | 32 | 4 | 70 | 258 | 364 |
Ohio | 16 | … | 29 | 205 | 250 |
Pennsylvania | 7 | … | 16 | 89 | 112 |
Rhode Island | 16 | 2 | 49 | 106 | 226 |
South Carolina | 19 | … | 39 | 150 | 206 |
Wisconsin | 8 | … | … | 61 | 69 |
Total | 485 | 28 | 1,134 | 4,654 | 6,301 |
Thus an officer with a family, selected for retirement, may be sure of ample means of caring for his family and the retired list will be actively engaged in serving the government. In time of war the retired officers actively engaged will first be called into service in their respective grades, and after them the officers not actively engaged and retired on graded pay. Three-fourths of those selected for retirement must serve on active duty. Officers retired for physical disability will not be considered in this relation, as such officers will be retired on three-fourths pay.
No officer will be advanced and retired except when coming up for promotion and physically disabled.
No officer shall be retired with the pay of rear-admiral unless he has served as such in command of a fleet, squadron or division for one year, or as chief of bureau. He may be retired with relative rank of rear-admiral, as at present allowed, except that he will not receive the retired pay as such, receiving the retired pay of captain only.
Rear-admirals serving as such in command of the following navy yards may be retired as rear-admirals provided they have commanded a ship of first or second class in active service while making, a cruise in the grade of captain, and provided they have been in command of the navy yard for one year while in the grade of rear-admiral.
NAVY YARDS.
Boston, Mass.
New York, N. Y.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Norfolk, Va.
Mare Island, Cal.
Puget Sound, Wash.
Washington, D. C.
It is not a credit to the service that 40% of the retired list of commissioned personnel should be of flag rank, while a large number have never commanded a ship and few have commanded ships of the first class and served as rear-admiral in the proper duties as such. Retired pay of flag rank is large and should be a reward for valuable service in that rank.
It is thought that these two systems will remove all opposition of Congress and of the service, if applied to the new Personnel Bill, and will result in younger captains and rear-admirals, a condition affecting vitally the efficiency of the service.
The question of number of enlisted and commissioned personnel is difficult of solution if a standard basis is to be applied. No standard will meet all conditions. In order to determine the number of men required, the following lists are appended. These lists show that approximately 1864 line officers and 61,564 men are required to man all ships of first, second and third rates, gunboats, torpedo craft, monitors and transports on January 1, 1913. The tonnage of 1,003,499 does not include colliers, which would be manned by merchant crews, nor does it include wooden receiving ships. This means 123 men per 2000 tons.
To the 1864 line officers above noted, as required to officer all of our ships, 25% should be added to allow for officers performing shore duty, on leave or sick leave, or changing stations. This results in 2330 line officers being necessary. To this should be added the 700 midshipmen at the Academy, which brings the total number around 3000. It is, therefore, seen that the 3000 officers and 60,000 men that would be authorized by the Personnel Bill are a necessity. The standard basis of five officers per loo men per 2000 tons of displacement meets the conditions as well as any standard and some standard should be adopted to produce the necessary results as, after all, the results are the main consideration, the standard used being of minor importance.
BATTLESHIPS.
Name of ship. | Displacement. | Complement. | |
Line officers. | Men. | ||
Indiana | 10,288 | 19 | 619 |
Massachusetts | 10,288 | 19 | 619 |
Oregon | 10,288 | 19 | 619 |
Iowa | 11,346 | 18 | 596 |
Kearsarge | 11,520 | 19 | 636 |
Kentucky | 11,520 | 19 | 636 |
Illinois | 11,522 | 19 | 623 |
Alabama | 11,522 | 19 | 623 |
Wisconsin | 11,522 | 19 | 623 |
Maine | 12,500 | 21 | 699 |
Missouri | 12,500 | 21 | 699 |
Ohio | 12,500 | 21 | 699 |
Virginia | 14,948 | 24 | 795 |
Nebraska | 14,948 | 24 | 795 |
Georgia | 14,948 | 24 | 794 |
New Jersey | 14,948 | 24 | 795 |
Rhode Island | 14,948 | 24 | 794 |
Connecticut | 16,000 | 25 | 841 |
Louisiana | 16,000 | 25 | 841 |
Vermont | 16,000 | 25 | 841 |
Kansas | 16,000 | 25 | 841 |
Minnesota | 16,000 | 25 | 841 |
New Hampshire | 16,000 | 25 | 841 |
Mississippi | 13,000 | 21 | 700 |
Idaho | 13,000 | 21 | 700 |
South Carolina | 16,000 | 21 | 701 |
Michigan | 16,000 | 21 | 701 |
Delaware | 20,000 | 25 | 827 |
North Dakota | 20,000 | 25 | 822 |
Florida | 21,825 | 25 | 824 |
Utah | 21,825 | 25 | 824 |
Wyoming | 26,000 | 27 | 905 |
Arkansas | 26,000 | 27 | 905 |
New York | 27,000 | 27 | 899 |
Texas | 27,000 | 27 | 899 |
| 555,796 | 795 | 26,417 |
47.5 per 1000 tons
Flagship of fleet (extra men required) 40
'Seven divisions of 5 ships each-extra men for 7 flagships 160
Total for battleship fleet 26,617
Number of men equals 47.9 per 1000 tons.
ARMORED CRUISERS.
Name of ship. | Displacement. | Complement. | |
Line officers. | Men. | ||
Pennsylvania | 13,680 | 23 | 776 |
West Virginia | 13,680 | 23 | 776 |
California | 13,680 | 23 | 776 |
Colorado | 13,680 | 23 | 776 |
Maryland | 13,680 | 23 | 776 |
South Dakota | 13,680 | 23 | 776 |
Tennessee | 14,500 | 25 | 839 |
Washington | 14,500 | 25 | 839 |
North Carolina | 14,500 | 25 | 839 |
Montana | 14,500 | 25 | 839 |
Total | 140,080 | 238 | 8,012 |
Two flagships (2 divisions) 46
Number of men equals 64.7 per 1000 tons.
CRUISERS, FIRST AND SECOND CLASS.
Name of ship. | Displacement. | Complement. | |
Line officers. | Men. | ||
Saratoga | 8,150 | 14 | 451 |
Brooklyn | 9,215 | 15 | 498 |
Charleston | 9,700 | 20 | 650 |
Milwaukee | 9,700 | 20 | 650 |
St. Louis | 9,700 | 20 | 650 |
Baltimore | 4,413 | 10 | 320 |
Chicago | 4,500 | 11 | 350 |
Newark | 4,083 | 9 | 282 |
Olympia | 5,865 | 12 | 392 |
San Francisco | 4,083 | 9 | 282 |
Total | 69,409 | 140 | 4,525 |
Two flagships (extra men) 46
_________
4,571
Number of men equals 46 per 1000 tons.
SOUT CRUISERS AND CRUISERS, THIRD CLASS
Name of ship. | Displacement. | Complement. | |
Line officers. | Men. | ||
Birmingham | 3,750 | 11 | 355 |
Chester | 3,750 | 11 | 351 |
Salem | 3,750 | 11 | 351 |
Chattanooga | 3,200 | 9 | 292 |
Cleveland | 3,200 | 9 | 292 |
Denver | 3,200 | 9 | 292 |
Des Moines | 3,200 | 9 | 292 |
Galveston | 3,200 | 9 | 292 |
Tacoma | 3,200 | 9 | 292 |
Albany | 3,430 | 10 | 327 |
New Orleans | 3,430 | 10 | 327 |
Cincinnati | 3,183 | 9 | 289 |
Raleigh | 3,183 | 9 | 289 |
Total | 43,676 | 125 | 4,041 |
Number of men equals 92.5 per 1000 tons.
TORPEDO CRAFT.
Name of ship. | Displacement. | Complement. | |
Line officers. | Men. | ||
16 Destroyers, Nos. 1-16 | 7,128 | 48 | 1,200 |
5 Destroyers, Nos. 17-21 | 3,500 | 20 | 415 |
21 Destroyers, Nos. 22-42 | 15,582 | 84 | 1,722 |
8 Destroyers, Nos. 43-50 | 8,000 | 32 | 736 |
Total for 50 destroyers | 34,210 | 184 | 4,073 |
Stringham | 340 | 2 | 55 |
Farragut | 279 | 2 | 62 |
Goldsborough | 255 | 2 | 61 |
Bailey | 280 | 2 | 57 |
15 Torpedo-boats (154-210 tons) | 2,695 | 30 | 450 |
5 Torpedo-boats (142-150 tons) | 756 | 10 | 120 |
3 Torpedo-boats (105-120 tons) | 330 | 3 | 63 |
5 Torpedo-boats (30-65 tons) | 252 | 5 | 65 |
38 Submarines (about) | 10,000 | 38 | 520 |
Total torpedo craft | 49,397 | 278 | 5,526 |
Number of men equals 112 per 1000 tons.
MONITORS.
Name of ship. | Displacement. | Complement. | |
Line officers. | Men. | ||
Cheyenne | 3,225 | 6 | 209 |
Ozark | 3,225 | 6 | 209 |
Tallahassee | 3,225 | 6 | 209 |
Tonopah | 3,225 | 6 | 209 |
Monterey | 4,084 | 6 | 210 |
Monadnock | 3,990 | 6 | 210 |
Total | 20,974 | 36 | 1,256 |
Number of men equals 60 per 1000 tons.
TRANSPORTS, ETC.
Name of ship. | Displacement. | Complement. | |
Line officers. | Men. | ||
Columbia | 7,350 | 8 | 250 |
Minneapolis | 7,350 | 8 | 250 |
Buffalo | 6,000 | 5 | 171 |
Celtic | 8,000 | 4 | 124 |
Culgoa | 6,000 | 4 | 123 |
Glacier | 8,325 | 4 | 130 |
Dixie | 6,114 | 6 | 203 |
Panther | 3,380 | 5 | 183 |
Prairie | 6,620 | 5 | 172 |
Rainbow | 4,360 | 5 | 174 |
Supply | 4,325 | 5 | 132 |
Yosemite | 1,197 | 5 | 128 |
Mayflower | 3,050 | 6 | 166 |
Solace | 5,700 | … | 112 |
Relief | 3,300 | … | 55 |
Eagle | 434 | 3 | 63 |
Hist | 472 | 3 | 58 |
Scorpion | 775 | 3 | 80 |
Sylph | 152 | 1 | 28 |
Yankton | 975 | 3 | 96 |
Pompey | 3,085 | 3 | 74 |
Iris | 6,100 | 3 | 116 |
Total | 93,064 | 89 | 2,888 |
Number of men equals 60 per 1000 tons.
Name of ship. | Displacement. | Complement. | |
Line officers. | Men. | ||
Cheyenne | 3,225 | 6 | 209 |
Ozark | 3,225 | 6 | 209 |
Tallahassee | 3,225 | 6 | 209 |
Tonopah | 3,225 | 6 | 209 |
Monterey | 4,084 | 6 | 210 |
Monadnock | 3,990 | 6 | 210 |
Total | 20,974 | 36 | 1,256 |
Number of men equals 31 per 1000 tons.
GUNBOATS
Name of ship. | Displacement. | Complement. | |
Line officers. | Men. | ||
Annapolis | 1,010 | 6 | 150 |
Princeton | 1,010 | 6 | 150 |
Newport | 1,010 | 6 | 150 |
Vicksburg | 1,010 | 6 | 150 |
Nashville | 1,010 | 6 | 171 |
Helena | 1,371 | 6 | 177 |
Wilmington | 1,392 | 6 | 177 |
Marietta | 1,392 | 6 | 148 |
Wheeling | 990 | 6 | 148 |
Alert | 990 | 6 | 133 |
Callao | 1,110 | 6 | 29 |
Elcano | 243 | 2 | 97 |
Mindoro | 170 | 2 | 21 |
Pampanga | 243 | 2 | 29 |
Panay | 170 | 2 | 21 |
Paragua | 243 | 2 | 29 |
Quiros | 350 | 3 | 54 |
Samar | 243 | 2 | 29 |
Vallalobos | 370 | 3 | 54 |
Castine | 1,177 | 6 | 138 |
Machias | 1,177 | 6 | 138 |
Dolphin | 1,486 | 6 | 125 |
Dubuque | 1,085 | 6 | 154 |
Paducah | 1,085 | 6 | 154 |
Petrel | 890 | 6 | 131 |
Ranger | 1,261 | 6 | 133 |
Yorktown | 1,710 | 6 | 175 |
Bennington | 1,710 | 6 | 175 |
Concord | 1,710 | 6 | 175 |
Wolverine | 685 | 3 | 82 |
Don Juan de Austria | 1,130 | 6 | 145 |
Isla de Cuba | 1,030 | 6 | 137 |
Isla de Luzon | 1,030 | 6 | 137 |
Total | 31,103 | 163 | 3,916 |
Number of men equals 126 per 1000 tons.
MISCELLANEOUS.
| No. of men. |
Receiving ships (includes Mohican and Baltimore). | 1,326 |
Prison ships and prisons | 161 |
Training ships | 517 |
Navy yards and stations | 1,160 |
Tugs (44 in number) | 552 |
Recruiting | 200 |
| 3,916 |
Fish Commission: |
|
Albatross (71), Fish Hawk (44) | 115 |
Prisoners | 860 |
Total miscellaneous | 4,891 |
GRAND TOTAL.
(Ships Serviceable for War Purposes Alone Considered.(
Name of ship. | Displacement. | Complement. | |
Line officers. | Men. | ||
Battleships | 555,796 | 795 | 26,417 |
Armored cruisers | 140,080 | 238 | 8,058 |
First and second-class cruisers | 69,409 | 140 | 4,571 |
Scout and third-class cruisers | 43,676 | 125 | 4,041 |
Torpedo craft | 49,397 | 278 | 5,525 |
Monitors | 20,974 | 36 | 1,256 |
Gunboats | 31,103 | 163 | 3,916 |
Transports, etc. | 93,064 | 89 | 4,888 |
Miscellaneous | … | … | 4,891 |
| 1,003,499 | 1,864 | 61,564 |
The Personnel Act of 1899 provides that when at the end of any fiscal year the average vacancies for the fiscal year above the grade of commander have been less than 13, above the grade of lieutenant-commander less than 20, above the grade of lieutenant less than 29, and above the grade of lieutenant (j g.) less than 40, a board may select out sufficient officers to cause the vacancies above noted. But no more than 5 captains, 4 commanders, 4 lieutenant commanders and two lieutenants may be selected out in any one year.
From July 1, 1911, to June 30, 1912, there are only five retirements due to age that will cause vacancies. By selection, 15 officers may be selected out. This will give 20 vacancies above the grade of lieutenant ( j. g.). If 20 more vacancies do not occur by voluntary retirements, resignations or casualties, the 40 vacancies will not result. The same result will occur in the grades of commander, lieutenant-commander and lieutenant, and the 13, 20 and 29 vacancies above the respective grades will not be obtained. It, therefore, becomes necessary to produce a continuous flow of promotion that will result in younger officers for the higher grades. The Personnel Bill at present before Congress will produce the flow in a manner fair and just to all.
If promotion by selecting out to cause vacancies is not obtained, promotion by selection becomes a necessity and few in the service would welcome such a system with its accompanying evils.
From July 1, 1911, to July 1, 1919, there will be about 53 retirements from age, eliminating extra numbers. This will average just tinder 7 vacancies per annum due to retirements for age. With 15 retirements due to selection, 22 vacancies per annum above the grade of lieutenant (j. g.) will result. Casualties will not give the remaining 18 vacancies by any means and, therefore, about 30 vacancies, or three-fourths of the vacancies that should be affected, would result. It will be impossible to obtain the 20, 29 and 40 vacancies supposed to result from the Personnel Act of 1899 and consequently those now entering the grades enumerated below will take about 20% longer time to pass through the grades than noted in column "A" below, except in the case of commanders, as 13 vacancies above this grade are practically assured, resulting in passing through this grade in 9 years. Column "A" gives the number of years an officer is supposed to pass through the grade indicated, according to the Act of 1899. In column “B” is noted the time it took the senior in each grade on July 1, 1911, to pass through the grade:
A B
Commander 9 3.0
Lieutenant-commander 10 5.1
Lieutenant 12 6.0
It is, therefore, apparent that the grade of lieutenant (j. g.) is not the only grade vitally affected. With no personnel legislation, we now have the youngest captains and commanders that we shall have for many years to come and the ages of youngest in grade will rapidly increase.
The Department's present Personnel Bill Certainly does remedy evils that are close upon us and should be studied closely by every officer. The bill is not complex, but is long and covers a vast amount of ground. Due to its length it is considered complex, but it becomes simple if carefully considered, section by section. Minor changes are necessary, however, to remove opposition and the bill should be discussed more in order to get the opinions of the service at large. If one is opposed to the bill there must be a reason and by giving reasons a better understanding among all concerned will result very quickly. To condemn a bill on general principles and without stating reasons is not logical.