The importance of the question, however, does not rest on a personal basis, but a national basis.  It makes no difference to the nation whether Smith is put above Jones, or Jones above Smith; and in all discussions of national matters it is essential to bear in mind clearly not only that national questions must not be obscured by the interjection of the personal element, but also that great vigilance is needed to prevent it.  For the reason that questions of the salaries of government officials have been settled in advance, questions of personal prestige and authority are more apt to intrude themselves among them than among men in civil life, whose main object is to “make a living”—­and as good a living as they can.  In the long struggle that has gone on in the United States Navy Department between the advocates and the opponents of a General Staff, the personal element has clouded the question—­perhaps more than any other element.  Not only in the department itself, but in Congress, the question of how much personal “power” the General Staff would have has been discussed interminably—­as though the personal element were of any importance whatever.

Such an attitude toward “power” is not remarkable when held by civilians, but it is remarkable when held by men who have had a military or naval training.  Of course, there is an instinct in all men to crave power; but it is not recognized as an instinct wholly worthy.  It is associated in most men’s minds with a desire for material possessions, such as money or political position, and not with such aspirations as a desire for honor.  In other words, a strong desire for wealth or power, while natural and pardonable, is considered a little sordid; while a desire for honor, or for opportunity to do good service, is held to be commendable.  So, when public officials, either military or civilian, condemn a measure because it will give somebody “power,” the reason given seems to be incomplete, unless a further reason is given which states the harm that would be done by conferring the “power.”

Military and naval men exercise “power” from the beginning of their careers until their careers are closed; and they exercise it under the sane and restraining influence of responsibility; without which influence, the exercise of power is unjustifiable, and under which influence the exercise of power is a burden—­and oftentimes a heavy one.  That men trained as military men are trained, should aspire to power for power’s own sake, is a little hard to understand—­unless it be confessed that the person desiring the power appreciates its pleasing features more than its responsibilities, and regards its duties more lightly than its glories.  Few men, even those who shoulder responsibility the most courageously, desire responsibility for its own sake—­and so the fact of a man ardently desiring “power” seems a good reason for withholding power from him.