'-t '! f.i
-A
0
Vippnininiiuii
W
' " " TT-
t'-
The Commoner
im
Ml
,'j ! (
.. .1'
The President for "the Greatest
Navy in the World"
, From Tlio Literary Digest, February 19, 19 1G.
Dowlldorcil surprlso seems to bo tho first re
action of tho editorial writers in all tho camps
to President Wilson's assertion that tho Amer
ican navy "ought, In my opinion, to bo Incom
parably tho greatest navy in tho world" a dec
laration that drew from his St. Louis audience
of 18,000, wo aro told, a roar of applauso that
"mado tho Coliseum rock." "Taking this at its
literal face-value," says a Massachusetts editor,
"it out-Gardners Gardner and out-Roosevfilts
RooBQvelt"; and oven so loyal a champion of tho
administration as tho New York World (dem.)
suggests that tho President "allowed tho enthu
siasm of tho momont to carry him too far." "If
ho meant tho statement to bo merely the theo
retical expression of a confessedly unattainable
ideal, ho may have been right," adds Tho World;
but "if ho meant it to bo tho statement of a
practically feasible ambition, it seems to us ob
vious that ho was wrong." Tho Charleston Post
(Ind. dem.) remarks that this unexpected ad
vocacy of a navy greater than any other "has
almost stunned tho advocates of 'adequato pre
paredness,' and thoro is a general confusion of
mind over the wholo question, perhaps greater
than boforo Mr. Wilson wont into tho west to
preach tho doctrine of national dofonse." Many
who feared that ho would not go far enough in
his recommendations, this South Carolina paper
adds, "now aro fearful that ho has gone too far."
Is ho being carried away, it asks, by tho 'pro
verbial zeal of tho new convert? "Mr. Wilson's
big navy caps Colonel Roosevelt's big array, and,
as far as tho public can see, neither is neces
sary," remarks, tho New York Commercial
(com.), which believes in "reasonable prepared
ness." "Thoro is a demand that wo should
stand second as a naval power, and a good sec
ond at that," admits tho Philadelphia Inquirer
(rop.); but it thinks that tho goal sot by tho
Proaidont "is little short of unattainable." "Is
it possible," asks another republican paper, tho
New York Tribune, "that tho President, who
still retains Jos? Daniels as secretary of tho
navy, with all that this means, is actually and
sincerely a convert to a policy of naval expansion
which makes a 'little-navy' man of Theodore
Roosevelt?" "It is a mighty good thing," re
marks tho Duluth Nows Tribuno (rep.), "that
President Wilson is back in tho cooling atmos
phoro of Washington." Other anti-administration
papers accuse him of "playing politics,"
whilo democratic journals advanco many earn
est arguments against tho "greatest-navy" idea,
among them tho enormous cost, and tho fact
that it would bo a stumbling-block in tho way of
disarmament at tho close of the war. Hero is
tho passage in tho St. Louis address which, as
tho Washington Post (ind.) remarks, "has
aroused no end of talk and bids fair to cause no
little confusion":
"Do you realizo tho task of the navy? Have
you ever let your imagination dwell upon tho
enormous stretch of coast from tho canal to
Alaska, from the canal to the northern coast of
Maine? There is no other navy in tho world
that has to cover so great an area, an area of
defense, as tho American navy. And it ought, in
my judgment, to bo incomparably the greatest
navy in tho world."
Somo editors remind us that tho general board
of tho navy, of which Admiral Dewey is presi
dent, registered its, conviction in its last year's
report to tho navy department that tho United
States navy "should ultimately bo equal to tho
most powerful maintained by any other nation
In tho world," and that this rank should bo at
tained "not later than 1925." But even this
stops short of tho President's idea of a navy
incomparably tho greatest in tho world, altho
It goes far beyond tho five-year naval program
which ho outlined to congress two months ago.
and which tho Snrincficlri Ttnnhu n r '
y would not put our navy even in second place.
r Our present navv. as tho Prnoi,w .i i
of hia recent speeches, is ranked by experts
fourth among tho world's navies. It costs us
now, in round numbers. $145,000,000 a year
notes tho Brooklyn Eagle (ind. dem.), which
SfJ to make it "incomparably tho
WOOOoTo UGt!Ilaia,1,mml -ntur of
?7-o,000,000. But it is obvious, this paper goes
on to say that such a navy "could not bo manned,
supplied, coaled, or provisioned without the
backing of tho world's largest merchant jma
rlno": "One out of every four vessels flying the
British flag is now in tho service of tho British
government, and tho other three are sailing un
der government direction. Tho only way to de
velop such a merchant marine is by somo sort of
government aid. If wo allow $275,000,000 a
year for the creation and maintenance of the
hugo transport fleet which will bo essential to
'incomparably the greatest navy in tho world,'
we reach that $1,000,000,000 total which be
came famous when, a few years ago, we had our
first 'billion-dollar congress.' In other words,
100 cents out of every dollar which the United
States is spending today for all governmental
purposes will, have to be devoted to the navy
alone."
This billion-dollar estimate is also figured by
Representative Thomas S. Butler, republican, of
Pennsylvania, of the house naval committee, who
fears that tho President's declaration "may bring
about the defeat of the wholo naval program."
Representative William A. Browning, of New
Jersey, another republican member of the Naval
committee, lines himself up with tho President
"for tho largest navy," whilo Representative
Frank Buchanan, of Illinois, a democrat on tho
same committee, thinks that the President "is
evidently in accord with the Wall street financial
and commercial pirates, who desiro a navy for
aggression, not for defending our shores." Other
democrats on tho committee, when, questioned
by a correspondent of tho New York Herald
(Ind.) refused to comment on, the President's
statement. Tho Washington .correspondent of
tho Chicago Herald (ind.) reports that tho "little-navy"
democrats, headed by Representative
Kitchin, "will fight more bitterly the adminis
tration's program, since, it appears, militarism
and navalism aro being fed on militarism and
navalism." And ho quotes a "high-ranking
officer" as saying:
"It would bo an impossibility for the United
States to catch up with Great Britain, and per
haps with Germany, during the next few years.
They have the shipyards, the skilled labor, and
the institutions for turning out officers and men.
We have a few shipyards, our skilled labor is
limited, and our educational institutions have a
small capacity."
It is "arrant nonsense" to talk of this country
needing such a huge fleet, says tho New York
Journal of Commerce (com.), "unless it intends
to enter upon a policy of bullying at sea that
will needlessly make enemies of nations to whom
tho safety of the sea is quite as important as it
is to us." And Tho World, which thinks that
an incomparable navy is an idle dream " re
marks: "Unfortunately Great Britain, with nothing
but imported food-supplies standing between her
population and prompt starvation, is convinced
that her 45,000,000 mouths to feed, rather than
our thousands of miles of seacoast, furnish the
vital need for naval supremacy.
"Wedded to this not unreasonable conviction
and with an overwhelming naval superiority
over us to start with, Great Britain will never
stand by and see our navy become comparable
with her own, let alone incomparable. She will
hold her present superiority, which is greatly
enhanced through wartime construction, by
building ship for ship with us as long as she is
financially able to do so."
nThie SaS?, arpment is advanced by Oswald
Garrison V Hard in his antimilitaristic New
to sayfVG S (ind,)' Mr- Villard soes on
"If we are to enter into a rivalry with England
n the matter of building ships. Heaven Sly
knows where it will end. Should congress give
the President his way it would result in the most
dangerous naval rivalry tho world has ever Boe
which, if the analogy of the German un
building program of 1901 holds, can have but
one ending-a conflict between the two forms
of Anglo-Saxon civilization, than which we w
been old, there could bo nothing worse for ?he
world's democratic development"
Moreover, he asks, will not this declaration
in favor of an incomparable navy "prove to be a
terrible stumbling-block in the way of disarm
ament at the close of the war?" Writing from
Washington, he continues:
"It was bad ' enough when ( the President's
original program was proposed: that, as a num
ber of German and English newspapers have
pointed out, put the gravest obstacle in the way
of disarmament. It is being asked here today
whether this latest development does not mako
it almost hopeless. For it must be noted that
in this big-navy debauch of the President he has
never once expressed the wish that this should
be a temporary condition, or gone out of his
way to say that, if the opportunity for universal
disarmament should come, the United States
would take the lead in laying down arms. That
is one of the most discouraging features about
it all."
If the President really believes that our navy
should be the greatest in the world, some anti
administration organs remark, then he is hope
lessly at odds with his secretary of the navy. "Of
all the stabs at Danielism this is the cruelest,"
remarks the New York Tribune, which adds:
"If Mr. Wilson's conversion is real, then all
that Mr. Daniel has ever stood for has become
unreal. Shall he, too, suffer conversion, or
shall he lay down his office, as Mr. Bryan did?
That is the unhappy choice which now confronts
the Secretary of the Navy. That is the nub and
kernel of the Josephan tragedy."
But voices are heard in approval as well as in
criticism of the "greatest-navy" idea. The
United States is rich and fully able to build the
largest navy in the world if it needs such a
navy," remarks the Salt Lake Tribune (rep.).
We must have enough naval power to defend the
.freedom of the seas, says the Milwaukee Sentinel
(rep.):
"So far as our country is concerned, the 'free
dom of the seas' is measured by the outward and
visible ability of the American navy as a fighting
force. That ought to be plain enough even to
the meanest American comprehension at a time
when the 'Mistress of the Seas is doing about as
she pleases, even to the larcenous degree of loot
ing our postal service with neutral countries."
If the President intended his words "to be
taken without qualification as the expression of
a national policy for which he purposes to;-labor,
' says the Springfield Republican (ind.),
then their consequences "outweigh whatever
else he has said on his trip." But "in view of
tho fact that his .utterance was in flat contradic
tion of the actual naval program which he laid
before congress in his annual message and which
ho caiv not now repudiate," the Springfield
paper classes his "greatest-navy" declaration as
a serious error" committed under the exhilara
tion of his "first plunge into the whirlpool of
crowded psychology," and contact with "enor
mous crowds tremendously vocal in their ap-
Conscription means enforced military service.
It means that men who do not want to
U,Slder? ,mu?t ,be soldiers, and any system
Z ? ?. mtende? t mpel an part of the
male citizenry of America to serve one month
or two months or any other partofTCte
iT"yCrt?anTngeVen thU8h tt be "mi?-
MAMMON, THE WAR GOD
"TwarSSUard PeaCe' WQ must- Prepare for
'The wLtb nf i m' !t,Was forsed in he
Ifi ni!io ?,f Ships ancl guns inflame the vulgar
T 10 Sd Of 4nr 7 WEP SUardS aSaillSt-
wftSSZ a man of business
Stores, Transports, Ammunition Coaling -Sta-
Fortifications, Cannon-Foundries Shinvirri
Arsenals, Ranges, Drill-Halls Float if Socks
War loan Promoters, Military Tailors
Camp Followers, Canteens, War Correspondents
Horso Breeders, Armorers Torpedo ButtdePB
Pipe clay and medal Vendors, Big Drum Makers
Gold Laco Embroiderers. Opticians, Bugled
Tent Makers, Banner Weavora vLt i ?S '
BewatbrUbea?tnifnallAihiS hStS' who ether.-in,
?rn5i'- i -V1 Air' among..them pocket, when
trade is brisk a million, pounds a.2:!
Isreal Zangwill. -.;
-.JL
a iMttufiX
