National Republican., 1884-04-08
ARSItRn PARsIMnNY.
Randall Is Struggling to Crowd the
Democratic Party Plainly Set Forth.
N6W York Herald.

Our Washington correspondent sends nm in.
stuctiye no,e from n naval engneet, who ex
plains, what probably few members of congress
understand, the time md care required to build,
test and mount modern naval artillery. Incl.
dentally he speaks Of the necessity OF ships to pro-
tect torpedoes planted for harbor defense-a
service for which the monitors are eminently
fitted and for which they ought to be at once COM
pleted.
Prominent democratic leaders have for several
yeats past again and again assured the country
that we have no navy. That is n fact. five
| should have presently to admonish so insignln.
cant state as Venezuela that she ought to pay
her Just dues to our citizens we have not ship TO
show in LdEuuyrd, which even the old fashioned
cannon Of that place would not presently batter
to pieces. -Four steel ships orc now building un-
der carefully guarded net of congress--one of
them, however, of small size. They will be ready
to receive their armament next year. But It sud-
denly ocourred to Mr. Randall TO refuse the money
necessary TO complete these guns, and he was
able TO nislcad most of the democrats, though not
all, in the house TO take his view and to oppose
the aiming OF our ships.
We have the hope that the democratic party
will not place itself finally, and on the reconsid-
Grafton of the subject, in ridiculous an attitude
rs that which MIR. Randall has prepared for it,
Economy is. all very we'll, the Herald urges and
defends II on all occasions. But is 1t economy to
build ships of war and then let them lie and rust
for want Uf the guns without which they are USE
less?
To complete the ordnance for the four new steel
ships $4,000 ara needed. 10 provide steel rihed
breeehloading cannon for the absolutely needed
fcarmament OF our present ships S599,C0O are
needed. For tho lighter ordnance, Hotchkiss and
tntiing guns and magazine rifles, as well as for
the tools for making these and other arms, s6G3 600
are needed. For torpedoes 100000 needed.
Besides this the navy department asks for slS,SO0
fr non ton in ha htrna
of ordnance. The total sum thus required is
| 81. 49,, $780,
Mr.. Randall being opposed to a navy. gave
only Sl6S,0O0 OF which he specially appropriated
nearly third for torpedocs. We are not sur
| prised that 30 eminent democrat as Mr. Dor
shcimer was struck with the absurdity of this.
! He said In The house debate, ~ cannot under.
stand why ship of war is to be built and not
provided with guns. The only purpose Of ship
OF war is to place the guns on the scene of con-
test and what object the committee could have
had in not making proper appropriations for the
armament Of these vessels intended 10 be ships of
| war fail to comprehend
| The public at large is as unable to comprehend
| this rs Mr.. Dorsheimer, with whose expressed
opinion concerning naval matters in general we
believe there will also be almost universal agree
| ment. He said
am one of those who believe in adhering to
what understand has been the historic policy of
| navy small in numbers, but of the best quality.
| That policy has not only been found sufficient In
tue past for the protection of the national interests
but II has also succeeded in working out, in most
| tinction.
And headed this important remark
! am free to say that was greatlydisturbed dur
| ing the summer by adverse criticisms which were
! made upon the new vessels, which criticisms ap-
peared in the English authority best known and Of
| the highest repute upon such subjects. l refer to
two articles in the Engineer. which criticised the
specifications upon which these cruisers were to be
constructed, and setting forth ground OF criu-
cism which seemed to be of the gravest character.
| Soon after came to Washington / embraced the
! opportunity had here to make inquiry and ascer-
| tain to what extent these criticisms were justified
by the facts. j am glad, Mr.. Chairman, to be able
to say that they were based not upon the specili:
built. but upon specifications which were laid
before the advisory board and rejected, and that
being constructed are OF an entirely different
| character from those which were crit tcsed by the
| Engineer. also took occasion to make such ex-
animation as a non:expert might make into the
question us to whether these vessels are likely to
be useful m or M not 1 and lam satisfied @ that t5ey are are
all our purposes as cruisers. and to the extent
| for which they are fitted for the most serious
| service of war will be most formidable vessels.
| We take leave TO think that Mr.. Dorsheimer
moro accurately represents the opinion of the
democratic party than Mr.. Randall in this mat
tor. For what DO we need n navy? First, we
| need few stout and we'll larmed ships for con-
slant use and for sudden emergencies, such as
the protection of our citizens where these are
wronged or in peril in some semi. civilized or dis
ordered country; second we need n few fast and
we'll armed cruisers as the nucleus OF a war navy,
and TO show the rest Of the world that we are not
utterly unable to strike back in case of a sudden
attack. Finally we need II few armored vessels,
| furnished with the most formidable modern guns,
for hnrbor defense, TO protect torpedo lines, and
| TO make II at leat hazardous for an enemy
| IL IA 81 ln.,s. a,,I Iap, a.l
| American city. That is what we need, that
is what we have not got and that is whist
Mr. Randall refuses to let us have We repeat 1t
will DO grave blunder in the democratic party If
II sides with Mr.. Randall and against the navy.
No extra taxatonis required TO give us that small
but effective navy which the country needs. Only
q small fraction of the great surplus revenue
needs TO be applied to this purpose. To refuse it
Is, as another democrat in the house (fr. Finerty,
Of Illinois apty said, mot political economy, but
political parsimony." 81 am fully aware" added
Mr. Finerty, OF the impossibility of at once cre-
ating great defensive and offensive navy. But
there is nothing to hinder the construction of ships
that will enable u.s. In the event of sudden hostili
ties to retaliate the commerce of our opponents
and compel their immense fleets to act as conveys
to their merchant marine. 1t Is for this reason
that l favor the increase III the number Of steel
cruisers"
So another democrat Mr.. Glascock, of Cllifor-
nla said: ~ believe, sir the policy we are now
pursuing in refusing TO finish the ironclads is a
bad one. and will not support 1t. believe in
economy aud reform, but do not believe in that
economy and reform which would leave 10000
miles Of seaooast in the United States entirely
defenseless aud two hundred and fifty billions
worth Of property at the hazard OF war, which
may happen ut any moment So also yet an
other democrat Mr.. Dudd, of California. said 81
say this matter of pretended economy is not true
economy. 1t Is parsimGny." Aud yet another
democrat Mr.. Sumner, of California, speaking Of
the monitors for hnrbor defense, said "The Mo-
nadnock, furnished with the latest improved
m achinery aud carrying the most effective rihed
guns may be and, we Insist, viii be, n formidable
antagonist We ask for the expenditure on her
of the legitimate appropriation, and We protest
against IL being taken away. We acknowledge
no adequate or III substitute In the deyotng OF a
small sum of money ON a wooden vessel"
These democrats OF New York, Illinois, and
California soem to us to represent the democratic
opinion more accurately than Mr., Randall. 1t
would be n blundcr for the democrats to follow
Mr. Randall and commit themselves as party
against the navy. We advise them not to do II.
willing 10 Accept Arbitration.
, FALL RIVER, MASS, April 7.--The regular
monthly meeting of the Spinners' union will
DO held tomorrow night. In his call Seore-
tary Howard says the union is willing tC
/. ~ III la nod,