officers there were left ample discretion and were never hampered in their work. The board was charged with delicate and most important duties, and yet the Department is not aware of an error in its performance of them." "

Minor Changes in Organization. Some minor changes in the organization of the Navy Department were effected during the period of the Spanish-American War. By order of the Secretary, dated March 19, 1898, the personnel and administration of the United States Naval Home were transferred from the Bureau of Yards and Docks to the Bureau of Navigation." A Coast Signal Service was organized for the duration of the war, by order of April 9, 1898, in conformity with the recommendations of a board convened by order of the department on October 18, 1897, "for the purpose of considering the establishment of coast signal stations for naval defense."" Mention has previously been made of the transfer, by order of the Secretary dated April 26, 1898, of the Naval Intelligence Office from the office of the Assistant Secretary to the Bureau of Navigation." The Hydrographic Office was transferred from the Bureau of Navigation to the Bureau of Equipment by act of May 4, 1898." The order consolidating the Naval War College, Naval Training Station, and Naval Torpedo Station at Newport, R. I., was revoked by General Order No. 496, August 26, 1898, which restored these establishments to their former status as separate institutions." The grade of Admiral of the Navy was reëstablished by act of March 2, 1899, and the Office of Admiral again became a branch of the Navy Department." Naval Engineer Corps. The long-standing dissatisfaction of engineer officers in the navy with their position as subordinate to line officers, and the increased importance of engineers in the operation of modern war vessels, led to the passage of an act on

41 55 Cong. 3 sess. (1898-99), H. ex. doc. 3, Vol. 1, 60; Vol. 2, 33-34Cf. Neeser, op. cit., 64.

42 Checklist, 1790. The title of the Naval Asylum at Philadelphia was changed to the Naval Home in the appropriation act of June 30, 1890.26 Stat. L., 189, 196.

43

'55 Cong. 3 sess. (1898-99), H. ex. doc. 3, 386, 394.

March 3, 1890, which provided for the interchange of line and engineer officers, upon examination, and the training of all future officers in both branches of the service, to be transferred from one to the other as might be convenient. A bill designed to increase the importance of the Engineer Corps had been introduced in both Houses of Congress three years before, which proposed to place at the head of the Bureau of Engineering a Director General of Naval Engineering, with the rank of Rear Admiral, whose duties should comprise everything relating to engineering material and personnel, and who should be a member of every naval board concerned with the policy of the navy. This bill encountered the determined opposition of line officers of the navy and was defeated in Congress."

The General Board. The Naval War Board created during the War with Spain, being merely a temporary organization, was discontinued after the cessation of hostilities. The advantages of such an advisory commission or board, however, had been clearly demonstrated, and, as a result of the experience gained during the period of emergency, a General Board was established by Navy Department General Order No. 544, March 13, 1900, charged with the general function of considering " questions relating to the efficient preparation of the fleet in case of war and for the naval defense of the coast." The powers of this board, which was composed of the Admiral of the Navy, the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation, the Chief Intelligence Officer, and the President of the Naval War College, were purely advisory in character, all of its communications being addressed to the Secretary of the Navy. Its establishment, however, was a distinct step forward in the direction of the creation of a general staff in the Navy Department."

Proposed Changes in Organization. A plan to simplify the organization of the Navy Department in the interest of economy and efficiency was proposed by Secretary Long in his annual report

48

30 Stat. L., 1004; 54 Cong. I sess. (1895-96), Congressional Record, Vol. 28, Pt. 1, 106, 582. Cf. Argument of the Naval Association in relation to the bill H. R. No. 3618 (Senate No. 735); Hollis, op. cit., 311 et seq. 56 Cong. 2 sess. (1900-01), H. ex. doc. 3, 19. Cf. Neeser, op. cit.,

49

for 1899 and again in 1900, which called for the consolidation of the Bureaus of Construction and Repair, Steam Engineering, and Equipment. "Under the present system," declared the Secretary, from the inception of its design until completed and placed in commission, the plans and specifications of a naval vessel are in the hands of three bureaus, each with a distinct organization, each having exclusive jurisdiction within certain lines, and all charged with the duty of carrying on work within, but not beyond, their respective provinces, as nearly as may be at the same time. Such a system is, in practical administration, cumbrous and expensive, and from its very nature tends to develop controversies respecting the scope of each bureau's duties and to occasion friction, delay, and want of harmony in doing whatever approaches border lines of jurisdiction."" Despite the reasonableness of this recommendation, Congress failed to authorize the proposed consolidation.

Although by law given no precedence over the other bureaus in the department, the Bureau of Navigation had acquired a priority in rank because of the character of the duties assigned to it. In addition to its primary function of the administration and direction of personnel, this bureau was charged with the administration of the naval forces in preparation for war-their organization and mobilization, the direction of the Naval War College and the Naval Intelligence Office, and the execution of all plans of campaign. Admiral Henry C. Taylor, Chief of the Bureau of Navigation, who was one of the foremost advocates of the establishment of the General Board in 1900, outlined in detail the duties performed by that bureau, in his annual report for 1902. These duties he considered to be too varied in character to be administered properly by one bureau; rather, they should be grouped in natural subdivisions, with responsible heads working in harmony under a single chief.

"To insure this large control and closer responsibility," said Admiral Taylor, "the methods of a general staff are desirable. Efforts have been made since 1893 to develop such methods, but without legislation by Congress. Up to the present moment a marked success has attended this development, and today we see the Bureau of Navigation, General Board, Office of Naval Intelligence,

6 56 Cong. 2 sess., H. ex. doc. 3, 27-28; 56 Cong. I sess. (1899-1900), H. ex. doc. 3, 56.

War College, and Board of Inspection and Survey drawing steadily closer together as component parts of a general staff. We can, however, go no further without congressional legislation which shall establish a general staff with the control necessary to administer more effectively the affairs of the fleet. There is needed a general staff and a chief of the general staff, who by direction of the Secretary, shall be responsible for the personnel and the efficiency of the fleet in commission; who shall, in fact, direct, under the Secretary, the military affairs of the fleet and be responsible to him for its conditions." " This, and subsequent recommendations coming from experienced naval officers and Secretaries of the Navy, however, met with no response in Congress."

51

Reorganization of Department, 1909. On February 26, 1909, a board appointed by President Roosevelt, composed of two former Secretaries, two high naval officers, and a member of Congress, submitted a basic plan for the reorganization of the Navy Department. In spite of the fact that this report was the work of men with extensive experience in naval administration and warfare, and was supported, in general, by both civil and military officers in the Navy Department, Congress again failed to respond. Steps were taken by Secretary Newberry, however, to reorganize the department by administrative regulation, as far as that was possible, and this work was continued and reached its fruition under his successor, Secretary Meyer, who assumed office on March 5, 1909. The latter appointed several boards composed of officers of varied experience in the Navy Department, navyyards, and fleet administration, to assist him in carrying out the proposed changes, the most important of which was the Swift Board, which was directed to digest the previous reports and opinions before the department, and to present a comprehensive plan for continuing the reorganization begun by the previous administration."

reports, 1902, 415.

" Navy Department, Annual Ibid., 1903, 5-6; 1906, 5-6. Captain A. T. Mahan published two articles in February, 1903, in which he especially emphasized the necessity of some continuous institution, interior to the legalized system of administration in the Navy Department, which would supply the defect inherent in the temporary tenure of the Secretary of the Navy, by formulating and maintaining a traditional naval policy.-Mahan, op. cit., 3, 51.

"Navy Department, Annual reports, 1910, 5. Cf. Neeser, op. cit., 66. Navy Department, Annual reports, 1909, 10.

Secretary Meyer, in his annual report for 1909, outlined the changes introduced in the department on December 1, 1909. "To supply the information and the responsible advice which the Secretary lacks at present," he reported, "the department has decided to detail officers of rank, specially fitted by experience, and of recognized ability in their several fields, as aids, for special branches of effort and study. The officers selected will, so far as practicable, be flag officers, who will each keep closely informed of the work of the department in his particular division and will advise the Secretary concerning it. The aids so detailed will have no supervisory or executive power or authority, and will act solely in an advisory capacity." The officers so detailed were four in number, namely, an aid for operations, who should advise the Secretary as to strategic and tactical matters in conjunction with the General Board, and also advise regarding the movement and disposition of naval vessels; an aid for personnel, who should advise the Secretary on matters pertaining to the Bureau of Navigation, the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, the Office of the Judge Advocate General, the naval examining and retiring boards, and the naval militia; an aid for materiel who should advise the Secretary generally on matters concerning the construction, arming, equipment, and supply of naval vessels, and the management of navy-yards; an aid for inspections, who should advise the Secretary on all inspections coming under the jurisdiction of the several inspection officers and boards.

55

"It is the hope and expectation of the department," said Secretary Meyer," that the detail of four officers of recognized ability and experience, as aids to the Secretary, will result in marked improvement in the naval service and in the introduction of reforms which have hitherto been without recognition. . . . The aids, who will assist the Secretary in the general matters before the department, will not be allowed to burden themselves with details which belong to the bureaus, and will thus be free to discuss policies and reforms with the Secretary. . . . With the assistance of these aids, the Secretary is provided with a minimum of advisers corresponding to the natural grand divisions of the department, the

85

5 Ibid., 1909, 8-9. Cf. Meyer, The reorganization of a department of the government, I (Paper read at the first meeting of the Efficiency Society, held in New York City, March 18-19, 1912).