Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

the last session he denounced all attempts to increase it still further.

"I am utterly opposed," he said, in January of the present year, "to adding a single man to the standing Army as it now exists. I am not in sympathy with those who want to add 25,000 men and 1,000 officers to the Regular Army now. I want to ask the gentlemen why do we need any more men than that in the continental United States? What are we going to do with them?"

In a recent magazine article on the "War Terror" he denounces as "militarists" those who advocate better preparation, and makes the usual Bryan arguments for retrenching military expenditures our geographical situation, our potential strength in men and munitions, and the like. In 1914, at the height of our trouble with Mexico, Secretary Garrison asked Congress for 7,500 additional men. Mr. Hay and his committee refused to grant the in"There is left in the continental United States," he said, "42,000 men, which will be sufficient for all necessary purposes." Although our equipment is dangerously deficient in artillery, Mr. Hay reduced the appropriation requested for guns from $2,100,000 to $750,000, and although we have artillery ammunition only for a few rounds he reduced this appropriation from $3,000,000 to $100,000. When Secretary Garrison, a few months ago, took his stand for military legislation at this next session, Mr. Hay announced his opposition to the plan. What are Chairman Hay's motives for opposing such legislation? Probably they are mixed; in a speech made in Congress a year ago, however, he dropped one illuminating remark.

He did not believe we should go in for military expenditures, he said, "at the expense of our harbors, of our public buildings, of our roads." That is, Mr. Hay, according to his own explanation, is an anti-militarist chiefly in the interest of the "Pork Barrel." Congressional appropriations to be spent in the district where the money will go into the pockets of his constituents, and incidentally solidify his own political fortunes, are more important than the defense of his country. This Congressional habit, as most Americans now under

stand, is our greatest legislative vice. Mr. Hay's career speaks this same tendency. In the opinion of the well informed, the period that marked the turning point in the Army was during the secretaryship of Elihu Root. Until Mr. Root's administration, our Army had been disorganized, unscientific, feeble; his work transformed it into a really efficient fighting machine. He abolished the bureaucratic system that had prevailed for generations, and established the modern staff system. In doing this, Mr. Root upset many cherished sinecures and discomfited many ambitious Army chiefs. The new idea aimed at efficiency and the destruction of politics as a governing force in the Army; the main purpose was to spend the people's money in ways that would furnish us the best army, irrespective of the interests of Congressmen or of wire-pulling generals. Mr. Hay has regarded his elevation to the chairmanship of the military committee as furnishing a rare opportunity to destroy the reforms of Mr. Root and to put the Army back upon the footing that led to such deplorable results in the Spanish War. His favorite idea is the reprehensible plan of attacking these reforms in riders to the Army appropriation bill. In 1911 he introduced such a bill, the purpose of which was to undo the Root reforms and hand the Army back to its political chieftains. Washington believed that the man who inspired this legislation was General Ainsworth, regarded as the greatest and most active politician in the Army. At least this legislation would have permitted General Ainsworth to retire as a lieutenant-general, although he had seen no line service for twenty years.

The legislation failed, but Chairman Hay still carries on his fight against General Wood. In 1912, Secretary of War Stimson and General Wood started a campaign against the management of the Army in the interest of the Congressional pork barrel. Concretely their activity was directed toward the abolition of scores of useless army posts. A hundred years ago the United States began establishing army posts on the frontiers, mainly as bases of operation against hostile Indians. As the Indians advanced further west, new posts were established, so that finally we had

about 150 stretched from Governors Island in New York to the Pacific. As hostile Indians have disappeared, not many of these posts serve any military end. As they "put money into circulation" in the places that have them, and otherwise add to community life, these localities fight all attempts at their abolition. Their upkeep wastes millions annually, merely in the interests of the pork barrel; the more serious fact, however, is that they menace military efficiency, as the scattering of the Army in more than a hundred places prevents quick mobilization. In 1912, Secretary Stimson submitted a report to Congress, describing this situation, and asking for the abolition of many of the posts. He showed how the Government could save more than $5,000,000 a year by taking such action. It is no secret that General Wood prepared this report. Among other things it recommended the abolition of Fort D. A. Russell and Fort Mackenzie in Wyoming; what made this recommendation especially daring was that these posts were the particular pets of Senator Francis E. Warren, Republican chairman of the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, who had induced Congress to spend-uselessly-about $6,000,000 on them in the preceding ten years. Soon after Congress received this report, Chairman Hay introduced, as a rider to the Army appropriation bill of 1912, a measure the immediate effect of which would have been the retirement of General Wood. Another would have been the promotion of Senator Warren's son-in-law, General Pershing. Chairman Hay and Senator Warren succeeded in getting this outrageous measure through both Houses. When it came up to President Taft his position was an awkward one. To veto it meant holding up the whole Army appropriation; yet, as Mr. Taft said, "the Army is too vital to be made the victim of hasty and imperfect legislation." The President, therefore, disapproved the bill-thereby cutting off for a time all money for the service. Mr. Hay denounced Mr. Taft viciously for his act, but all men interested in freeing the Army from the dirtiest kinds of politics applauded the President's courage.

Last summer, when the newspapers

foreshadowed Mr. Garrison's proposed reforms, Mr. Hay again condemned any great increase in military efficiency. More recently, however, he shows some signs of yielding somewhat to public sentiment. It is to be hoped that this mood will become permanent.

THE GENTLEMAN FROM OREGON

In the Senate the situation is better. Senator George E. Chamberlain, chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs here, is a politician to his marrow, is by no means unacquainted with the pork barrel, and has popularly been described as the "best hand-shaker west of the Mississippi River." Though he spent his early life in Mississippi, he represents in the Senate the far northwestern state of Oregon. And Mr. Chamberlain really represents in all details this vigorous commonwealth. He is a product of the radicalism which signifies Oregon's revolt from the era of the land thieves who for so many years dominated its public life. Mr. Chamberlain owes his political success to the initiative and referendum, the recall, woman's suffrage, the popular election of United States Senators, and the other things that make up what is known as the Oregon System.

Mr. Chamberlain is honest, he has great political sense, and no man responds so immediately to public sentiment. Naturally his attitude on military preparation hardly duplicates that of Congressman Hay. In the Sixty-third Congress he took the middle ground between those who advocated a great standing Army and those who believed in maintaining it at its present size. Concretely he came out for a force of 125,000. "With such an Army properly officered and an efficient national guard as a nucleus," he said, "and the establishment of a reserve, which can be created with little, if any, expense, there is no question but that we will be in a position to meet all the dangers that are likely to come upon us from foes without or within." Recent utterances indicate that Mr. Chamberlain may go further than this. Last session he introducd a bill providing for a council for national defense and another increasing by 10,000 men our forces at coast fortifications. "In my opinion,"

he said in a letter to the War Department last winter, "the time has come when a definite Army policy should be adopted.

As chairman of the Military Affairs Committee I am ready to do my part in making adequate provision for defense based on the recommendations of the General Staff." Certainly that is an encouraging contrast to Mr. Hay's attitude.

Mr. Lemuel P. Padgett, chairman of the House Naval Committee, has a rather unsatisfactory Navy record. A few years ago he was making "little Navy" speeches ---speeches which the present Congressional enemies of the Navy have recently been casting in his teeth. As a minority member of the Navy committee, Mr. Padgett worked against the large plans of President Roosevelt and others. In 1911, he inIn 1911, he introduced a resolution for one battleship instead of two-a resolution that, fortunately, failed. When he became chairman of the Naval Affairs Committee, however, Mr. Padgett's attitude changed. In 1912, the new Democratic majority voted in caucus not to authorize any battleships at all that year. The Republican Senate held out for two. Mr. Padgett assumed the leadership in opposition to his own party, and, by hard work, succeeded in obtaining one. Since then he has supported all the Administration's policies; in 1914, indeed, President Wilson wrote thanking him for his excellent services to the Navy. An act that must be placed on the other side was his resolution, introduced in 1914, appropriating $200,000 for opening the New Orleans Navy Yard. This was porkbarrelism of a particularly vicious kind. Secretary Meyer had closed this yard, on the advice of Admiral Dewey, Admiral Fiske, and other experts that it served no useful purpose; its only aim was to distribute a certain amount of the Government's money at New Orleans. Secretary Daniels, determined that the South should not be deprived of this graft, opened the New Orleans yard, and Mr. Padgett unfortunately has abetted him. At present Mr. Padgett, like Secretary Daniels, stands for a "conservative and ample Navy policy." Just what that means the forthcoming session will show.

cornfield lawyer and pitchfork statesman, will have charge of our naval interest. A more unsuitable representative, of course, we could hardly have. Mr. Tillman has served on the Navy committee for many years; in all that time his leading idea of naval defense has been to secure as large appropriations as possible for the Charleston Navy Yard. This enterprise has become a classic illustration of our great national vice-the use of public money, not for national purposes, but merely as patronage for localities. As a result of Senator Tillman's excursions into the national treasury, we have spent about $6,000,000 in building a dry dock for battleships at Charleston; this despite the fact that modern battleships cannot reach this dock even at high tide! Senator Tillman at least has the merit of being frank. "While all this stealing is going on," he once said in the Senate, referring to appropriations for navy yards, “I want my share." At another time he described the Charleston Navy Yard as "my slice."

As to his attitude on the American Navy Mr. Tillman, in 1912, was the only man on the Senate Committee to support the Democrats in the House in their vote for no battleships. In the same year he introduced a resolution that embodied his ideas on naval reform. The United States, this resolution suggested, should stop wasting money on many dreadnaughts; instead it should build one ship infinitely bigger, swifter, more heavily armed and armored than anything afloat. "Let us find out just how far we can go," the resolution read, "and go there at once. Let such vessel be named 'The Terror,' and become the peacemaker of the world; let us have some money in the Treasury for more necessary and useful expenditures, such as good roads, controlling the floods of the Mississippi, draining the swamp lands of the South, and irrigating the arid land in the West." In the present year Mr. Tillman has somewhat modified this opera bouffe attitude. He has recently announced his willingness to coöperate with the Administration on strengthening the Navy. Thus, though Mr. Tillman will probably lend little real assistance, there is the comforting likeliIn the Senate, Mr. Benjamin R. Tillman, hood that he will not be an obstruction.

THE PRESS ON PREPAREDNESS

A POLL OF 261 NEWSPAPERS, IN ALL PARTS OF THE UNited states and of all COMPLEXIONS POLITICALLY, ON THE NEED FOR STRENGTH

ENING THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

[THE WORLD'S WORK undertook this poll of the press primarily to ascertain the percentage of papers that favored preparedness and the percentage that opposed. Its idea was to publish a statistical article. But of the 261 representative newspaper editors whose views have been obtained, only 6 showed any doubt of a need for stronger national defense. As statistical comparisons of views thus became absurd, the following article was undertaken with the purpose of selecting some of the most interesting and most representative expressions of opinion on the various aspects of our military situation from the wealth of material supplied through the courtesy of the papers.-THE EDITORS.]

F THE newspapers accurately reflect public opinion, the people of the United States are practically unanimous in their wish for improvement of the national defenses. The degree to which they would prepare, the methods by which they would prepare, differ. Some demand the biggest navy in the world and some think more submarines and coast defense guns will suffice. Some favor a big standing army; some, an enlarged national guard; some, universal compulsory training. The majority opinion favors a navy second in power to Great Britain's and a reorganization of our land forces to give us an increased standing army and ultimately a reserve of a million men. The papers treat the question of preparedness as the most important subject before the new Congress which convenes in December, and warn that body that the country demands prompt and adequate measures to meet the situation.

The instant need of preparedness is sharply felt by all but a few newspapers, regardless of their geographical position or political faith. Thus the New York Herald sees in preparedness "the greatest problem now confronting the Government. and the nation"; the Portland Oregonian deplores the "lamentable fact that we are so utterly unprepared that we are too weak to fight"; and the Chicago Herald expresses its "conviction that the great majority of Americans desire adequate preparedness for national defense, and that the opposition is more noisy than numerous."

Papers great and small, from California to Maine, echo these sentiments; the phraseology, but not the idea, varying from place to place. The Cleveland Plain Dealer sees in preparedness "a grave national necessity"; the New York Times, "a too long neglected, inescapable, instant duty”; the Indiana Daily Times (Indianapolis), "our pressing and immediate business"; the Boston Evening Record sees "the need for better preparation patent on every side," and declares that "the sentiment that we must as a nation prepare ourselves for any emergency that might occur is spreading from one end of the country to the other. It will not be checked by charges of jingoism. It is not jingoism. It is not militarism. It is common sense."

WHY WE MUST PREPARE

Many reasons are advanced to explain just why preparedness is essential. The Wichita (Kan.) Beacon points to "the astounding lesson of German system and efficiency," and the Binghamton (N. Y.) Press bluntly adds: "We have been nearly drawn into war with a nation fighting to the limit of its strength. Within ten years we may be confronted by that nation at the height of its power." The Philadelphia North American declares that "there has never been in history, we think, a more striking example of temerity than has been furnished by the United States during the last half year in formulating demands which at any time may involve it in war, while neglecting the most ele

mentary precautions to enforce its highsounding words or even to resist further aggression." The Philadelphia Record observes that "the present war teaches that war may happen in a week. It teaches the enormous advantage of preparation in men and munitions to meet an onset."

The sentiment of those numerous papers which demand an armed force to back the Monroe Doctrine is perhaps best voiced by the Minneapolis Journal, which asks, "Will Europe Let Us Alone?" and adds:

We are dragged into foreign complications by the hair, so to speak. Nevertheless and notwithstanding, we are continually dragged in. Cuba dragged us in, and Mexico, despite our best endeavors, promises to do the same.

We have become accustomed to having our wishes, in the Western Hemisphere at least, tenderly considered by Europe.

This war, however, may change the situation for us, should its outcome, as is possible, leave no effective buffer between ourselves and the more ambitious Powers. We should consider the possibilities in such a changed estate.

[ocr errors]

"War is sometimes the resort of a desperate monarch"-the phrase is from the Baltimore News-is one expression of a fear that besets many editors. Many acquiesce in the view of the Chicago News, that "the condition of the warlike but bankrupt nations will be so desperate that this country will need to be well prepared against a sudden and overwhelming attack." Thus the Memphis Commercial Appeal declares that "we are to-day the richest country in the world and we are the most defenseless. When this war is over a lot of nations will be money hungry. They will have a superb military organization and we will be among them like a fat spring lamb among a lot of hungry wolves."

Replying to the claim that Europe will be too tired of war and too weak to attack us, the Binghamton (N. Y.) Press adjures us to "let no one imagine that Europe is going to be so exhausted by this conflict that no nation there could afford to affront

this defenseless country." And the Toledo Blade recalls that "Servia fought two exhausting wars and with a shout entered upon a third."

the inquiry, "Is the United States threatened by the possibility of invasion?" The Chattanooga (Tenn.) News thinks not:

But the Albany Knickerbocker Press gives credence to the picture painted by Colonel Edwin F. Glenn, chief of staff for the eastern department of the Army:

Addressing citizen soldiers of the camp of instruction at Plattsburg, he declared a foreign army of invasion would have no great difficulty in smashing its way through the eastern section of the country and fortifying along a line from Lake Erie to Chesapeake Bay, building up an impregnable defense that it would be impossible for this nation to dislodge for years, at least.

The New York World, however, though in favor of preparedness, is as impatient with this extreme view as it is with the peace-at-any-price party. It speaks the sentiments of some of the most influential papers in all sections of the country in an editorial, "The Most Eminent Cowards:"

The most eminent cowards in the United States to-day are the extremists in the campaign for military preparedness. They are afraid of everybody. They live in quaking and abject terror of everything.

We do not mean that the Nation ought to rest smugly satisfied with inadequate means of national defense or that its military resources should be left to chance and improvisation. We have no more regard for Colonel Bryan's complacent army of 1,000,000 which is to spring into being overnight than we have for Colonel Roosevelt's froth and fury against every American whose teeth do not chatter in terror when he looks at a map of the world.

To say that the United States must immediately spend $500,000,000 on the Navy and support an Army of 1,000,000 men is just as silly as to say that the country should learn no lesson whatever in military defense from the war that has wrecked Europe. Between the lunatics and the fools, there is a broad plateau of sanity which we hope that the Administration and Congress will seize and occupy.

High moral ground is sought by the Chicago Herald as a mandate for preparedness. That paper declares that "the world cannot afford to lose the spectacle, the encouragement, and the example of a free, competent democracy," and adds:

we must now show that democratic

This thought suggests to many papers institutions respond to every national need; we

« PředchozíPokračovat »