short time how much reduction would be made, would it be possible for the Navy to begin to reduce now to meet the possible reduction that would become effective as of July 1? Would this appropriation have any effect upon that, or would the need for this appropriation be lessened? Secretary DENBY. If you mean in case Congress enacts legislation that curtails the Navy immediately, of course a corresponding curtailment all along the line would be effected; but if we wait until June 30, and are carrying on the Navy we now have, and with which we are charged, we will, of course, make all economies possible, but we can not materially alter this figure or recommend any material alteration in it. The CHAIRMAN. What I was trying to find out was this: Let us assume that we are running the Navy on the basis of $425,000,000 a year to-day, and suppose we were by any chance to cut that in two, this being merely a supposititious case, and it was fairly well understood that within a week or two that would be the policy, would it not be possible then to begin to curtail and operate on that basis right away, so far as the expenditures are concerned? Secretary DENBY. It would be possible, but I personally would not take the responsibility of doing it until Congress itself had acted on the subject. The CHAIRMAN. I was assuming that possibility. Secretary DENBY. I do not see how we could do it, except, as I say, by daily economies. We are selling ships now. For instance, the Brooklyn has recently been sold, and a great many vessels are being sold. We have sold some 600, and we are selling them all the time. We are getting rid of the obsolete ships to the best advantage and as rapidly as possible, but we do not want to throw them away. We have a great many ships on the list for sale immediately. The CHAIRMAN. I wondered if there were not some ships that really would not be of any great advantage in the battle line. For example, if it should be determined to be the policy, beginning next July, not to keep those ships in commission, and it were fairly well understood before action by Congress was taken that that would be the policy, without having official action upon it, of course, I was wondering whether that would make any difference? Secretary DENBY. I think the department would have to wait until it had had an official mandate either from the Commander in Chief of the Navy, the President, or from Congress, instructing it what to do. We are charged with maintaining what Navy we have. and we are trying to do that as best we can. We are trying to maintain it as cheaply as possible. Of course, economies along certain lines can go too far. We have a certain class of vessels that we are sometimes criticized for keeping, as, for instance, some cruisers. We have been criticized within the last few weeks or within the last few months a number of times for using light cruisers, or the armored cruisers of the Spanish War period, in certain services. Those cruisers have been employed for service that was governmental and necessary, and that we were instructed to employ them in. If we had not used them, we would have used first-class battleships, because the destroyers are not available for that purpose, and the scout cruisers are unfinished. We find that some of those ships are very economical to use. The Olympia, for instance, has rendered extraordinary service not only in the Near East but in bringing home the unknown dead. In the Near East she won a medal of honor almost equal to that won in the Manila Bay operations, in preserving conditions out there, in carrying refugees, and doing a great many other things which a battleship would have been employed to do if we had not had the Olympia. However, she is about to go on the list either for preserving, if there is sufficient public sentiment that calls for her preservation as a historical relic, or for sale later. That is true of a good many other light craft. We must have some light craft. We can not get along with only submarines, destroyers, and battleships, but there must be an intermediate craft. The scout cruisers are only 10 in number, or not more than an adequate number to constitute the proper auxiliaries for the battle fleets. They will be used for every conceivable purpose that we can use them for. Such service as can be performed by the lighter craft are being performed by them, and if we did not have these lighter craft those missions would have to be performed by battleships at tremendous cost. The CHAIRMAN. That is a detail we would not be supposed to be familiar with, and that is the reason I asked the question. Mr. KELLEY. I want to know more about the policy for the rest of the year. From this statement, Mr. Secretary, it appears that you are asking over $10,000,000 for fuel for the next five months. Secretary DENBY. Yes, sir; $10,709,000. Mr. KELLEY. I was wondering if it might not be found advisable to go a little slower than that. Secretary DENBY. We are now steaming the battleships 6 days in 30 days at sea. That is, we have them under steam for that period of time. We have got to steam them a certain amount, because you can not lay up that gigantic bulk of tremendous and intricate machinery and these men who need the training. You can not keep them in port all the time. Their deterioration would be very much more expensive than the additional cost that would be incurred for fuel. I have tried to indicate how I personally, in consultation with the officers in the department, have reduced expenditures, but I do not want to reduce them to such a point that we would either utterly cripple the fleet, or have to come back for another deficiency. We do not want to come back for another deficiency. We would not be welcome if we did, and, therefore, we are putting the estimate at a figure that we know we can get through with. The CHAIRMAN. You will not be able to cruise more than three days per month with the battleships under a plan which contemplates an appropriation of $10,000,000 for fuel? Secretary DENBY. It will be six days per month after the 1st of March. It is the same now. Mr. KELLEY. The bulk of this fuel is for small ships, but I suppose we will have that by classes. 91019-22- -26 Secretary DENBY. The smaller ships we are getting rid of as fast as we can. We have on hand a tremendous accumulation of war material, and the deflation has been tremendous already. Mr. KELLEY. Which one of the officers figured out that it would take $12,000,000 to keep the ships tied up without steaming? Secretary DENBY. I can not tell you which one, but I think that came from Supplies and Accounts. Capt. LEUTZE. That was my figure. Secretary DENBY. That would keep the entire Navy tied up during the entire year, not steaming at all, and taking into account the necessary heating, etc., which would require steam on board each ship. The CHAIRMAN. That is for the Navy at its present strength. NUMBER OF SHIPS OF ALL TYPES. The CHAIRMAN. How many more ships are there in the Navy now of all types than there were before the war? Secretary DENBY. I do not know. Admiral COONTZ. The great increase was in destroyers and in submarines. We have now, I think, 817 vessels left in commission, of which we are proposing to sell at least 200. We sell on an average 20 ships every 30 days. Secretary DENBY. I think the question was as to how many more we have now than we had before the war. Admiral COONTZ. I will have to put that in the record. |