National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-04-25
FALSE PRETENsEs.
The shallowness OF Randall's Cry OF
Economy I'm Cutting Down Appropriate
lions for the Navy--A Foul Move.

tions for the Navy-A Foul Move.
Hdrper's Wetkly
The mischief, which might easily become fatal
mischief, OF turning all legislation into effective
campaign material is shown by the conduct OF the
democrats in congress toward the naval appro.
priation DILL. The democrats wish to raise n cry
of economy, and show how much they have re-
duced appropriations, and to do this they are will
ing to leave the country unprotected by its most
effective arm of defense against u foreign ioe-the
navy This trick has been tried before, and 1t was
well exposed. Every sensible man sees that to
withhold an appropriation for necessary pur-
pose does not save the money 1t will
undoubtedly reduce the total amount apparently
expended. But the expense is not reduced. 1t is
only delayed. The objectto which 1t is temporar-
lily refused Is not an object which will disappear.
On the contrary, the demand for the money as u
necessary outlay will become more imperative,
and the country will see that it has been fooled
by amere pretense Of economy. There are thirty
five cruising vessels in our navy. Ten or twelve
OF them will be past use in two three years, and
none of them are now first rate war vessels. Tho
defeat Of the appropriations this year would leave
the county without an effective navy for four
| years. because the promptest efficient construc-
| ton of the ships already contracted for would
take three years even If the appropriations were
| at once made.
| As the Herald well says the cry of "Robeson"
and chandler" is not an argument 1t is an ex-
| ceedngly silly attempt to defeat necessary un-
dertaking for the public welfare by an appeal to
| personal prejudice. Mr.. Robesonjis not in con-
gress, or in any ofiice' lblic position whatever.
| His views have no more TO do with the question
than those Of any other private citizen. What
| ever his conduct as secretary of the navy may
have been he is not secretary Of the navy now.
Mr. Chandler the actual secretary. is of very diff
ferent school of politics from ours and OF his con-
| duct In the Gorringe case we spoke very decidedly
at the time. But 1t Is not the secretary of the
| navy who directs the work of construction, blu,
the naval advisory board. Moreover, there
has been no authentic charge or evidence
| Of wasteful or corrupt use Of the
| public money in the secretary's man
| agement of the navy and to say that the United
| States shall not have proper navy because "B
Chandler is secretary is saying so inexpressibl!
foolish that no capable member OF congress woult
repeat 1t. The creation of navy can BIO right
fully opposed only upon the ground that we hav,
a navy, or that we do not need one, or that W.
cannot afford to have one. VIII anybody ventur,
to sustain any one OF these allegations? VIII h,
say that our present force and character of vessel
compose an adequate and fitting navy of tn
United States? Or that, with our commerce ant
seacoast and standing among nations, a navy 4
not necessary? Or that we are too poor to build
navy? No, he will not say any of these things
But II he be democrat no VIII Say tnat an elec
ton is coming; that the people don't know mucl
about the navy, and that economy is capita
campaign cry.
There are four steel ships now building. Thei
proper armament would cost about Si50OOO TIL
re.armament of the present vessels would cos
about 100000. For lighter ordnance, torpedoe!
repairs, &C., something less than 100000 is Il
qulred. The total is about 81, $4,000 Mr., Randa
, refuses to report the appropriation. In regard
the new ships for which the senate has vote
$4,000, Mr.. Randall says that the bureau OF ord
nance has sufficient sum on hand to cover tn
expense A careful examination of the figure
which he produces in justification of this state
: ment shows that he proposes, in effect, that a
armament costing about 900 shall be provide
from an appropriation for current expenses of tw
years, amounting to $3.50. 900 large part Of while
has been already spent for its designated purpos
and an unexpended balance ofS32,0O0 appropriate
for another purpose. While the politicians ar
peddling with the question to affect II
elections, naval artillery officer, evidently
competent expert, shows that It is a question q
the highest science. For instance, powder Of
kind never before made iu the United States
! imperatvely necessary for theordnance proper
Z such ships and the manufacture OF the guns II
qures as much plant and time as tho building
the ship. Indeed, intelligent aud patriotic nav'
officers must be sorcly tried by the performance
i of politicians in connection with u navy. NJ
= Dorsheimer is u democratic member of congre
who happily holds to the American policy an
l. tradition of small but thoroughly equippe
navy. That is unquestionably the America
= policy and desire to-day, and the party whit
| tries to battle IL must reckon with the people.