There was no "hard boiled" discipline tolerated in the Navy. Courts-martial were reviewed in a spirit of meting out justice, with consideration and discrimination, as well as mercy. Admiral George R. Clark, Judge Advocate General during most of the war, set new standards of military court procedure and lessened the rigors of punishment.
CHAPTER XXXIV
FIGHTING THE PROFITEERS
MANY MILLIONS SAVED BY REFUSING TO PAY EXORBITANT PRICES—"NAVY ORDER" PREVENTED EXTORTION—OVER THREE BILLION DOLLARS EXPENDED WITH NEVER A HINT OF GRAFT OR EXTRAVAGANCE—COMPETITION ADHERED TO IN WAR—FEEDING AND CLOTHING 500,000 MEN A BIG TASK, ACCOMPLISHED WITH SIGNAL SUCCESS—SAVING IN HUGE SHORE CONSTRUCTION.
The Navy spent over three billion dollars for war purpose without a suggestion of extravagance or graft. To be exact, Congress appropriated $3,692,354,324.71. Of the amount $334,360,000 were returned to the Treasury, in February, 1919, and additional sums later by the sale of excess supplies and vessels that were no longer needed.
The rule of the Department, "A dollar's worth of Navy for every dollar spent," was adhered to in war as well as in peace. Early in 1917 steel was contracted for at 2.90 for Navy ships when the price was soaring in the market. Coal and oil and copper were purchased at reasonable prices or commandeered. Manufacturers of torpedoes and smokeless powder and other makers of munitions were held to reasonable profits. Where munition or supply dealers wished more than a fair profit, a "Navy Order" was placed.
The history of the "Navy Order" should be told, for it was the weapon that saved the Navy from profiteering. Competition prevailed through the war in all purchases except where the supply was inadequate for war necessities. In some cases the exigency of war demanded commandeering orders. Such orders were sometimes required because excessive prices were quoted, but often because the only private concerns which could manufacture the article needed were under contract for all their output. If they furnished the government of their own will, they were liable to the parties who had contracted for their product. In such instances, a commandeering order was necessary both to obtain a war necessity and to protect the manufacturers.
In the naval appropriation act a provision was early inserted, drawn by Chairman Padgett, giving the power, when agreement could not be reached as to the price for something essential, to commandeer it—whether ships or land or munitions or supplies—and pay 75 per cent of the appraisement, leaving to the owner the right to contest in the courts the reasonableness of the compensation so fixed. That provision later became applicable to all war agencies of Government. It was not often invoked. The knowledge that the power was there and the declaration by the Secretary of the Navy that he would invoke it when any excessive price was demanded, and its use in some notable instances, made profiteering on the Navy not easy, and it was seldom undertaken.
"Certain coal operators are demanding excessive prices for coal," said an officer of the Supply Department when coal was necessary to bring back soldiers and munitions from Europe and carry on naval operations.