A Question in Discipline
(SEE PAGE 1105, WHOLE No. 152, JULY-AUGUST, 1914)
CAPTAIN T. W. KINKAID, U. S. Navy.—I think that the author has uncovered most cleverly a weak point in our system. His reference to the turret captain lurking "in his turret like a feudal baron" is delightful.
Remedies have been proposed by the author and by his reviewer, Commander W. W. Phelps, U. S. N.; but I desire to suggest another—plenty of infantry drill. Ships' companies should be landed at almost every opportunity for that inculcation of discipline which no other means can give so well as smartly conducted infantry drills. When "the feudal baron" becomes an infantryman he must look sharp, for orders come thick and fast; and disobedience stands out so prominently as to shock even the most indulgent into taking notice.
Therefore I say: Infantry drill, year in, and year out.
LIEUT. COMMANDER T. D. PARKER, U. S. Navy.—I beg to add a word to a brief article on "A Question in Discipline" (in the July-August number of the PROCEEDINGS) with reference to a comment by Commander Phelps, who says:
“The writer dwells on punishment,"
and goes on to show, in effect, that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
The writer is so heartily in accord with the view, that he does not willingly find his article pilloried through mistaken identity.
His plea was for a certain end—a betterment in some details of ship life. A form of punishment (in proportion—impersonal—less severe than some reprimands) came in as a means to the end. It is assumed in any such discussion—even in the Navy Regulations—that preventive measures always have a precedence. The question is: When they fail, in the exceptional case, what do? I merely propose a different system in the punishments already prescribed, to cover such cases—the substitution of legal punishments in minor cases by a divisional officer, for illegal punishments, or for action by the captain in person.
As to the objection (lack of uniformity) urged by some military men to the army method; this might have weight where punishments large and small were given in this way, as in the army, but would hardly be serious with only petty offenses involved, and the captain's approval necessary.
Naval Policy: As it Relates to the Shore Establishment, and the Maintenance of the Fleet
(SEE PAGE 319, WHOLE No. 150, MARCH-APRIL, 1914)
REAR ADMIRAL W. C. COWLES, U. S. Navy.—The reading of this very able paper has been a great pleasure to me, as the ideas are so sound and forcibly expressed that it must have the serious consideration of every officer of experience.
The underlying principles stated by Captain Hood and the conclusions arrived at seem obvious as those which must control to obtain highest efficiency in the shore establishment.
A distinct recognition, is also given to the fact that much time will be necessary and many delays encountered in bringing about the changes required, which makes it important that from as early a time as is practicable every new expenditure for this purpose should be along the lines of the policy laid down and should show value to this end or be eliminated.
Finally, in view of the large appropriations now being made for the naval establishment, and the eventual cost of these facilities, the most rigid economy in all non-essentials should be exercised, and to this end the plan to be adopted should be fixed as soon as practicable.