National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1885-07-21
"THE GOVERNMENT Is SAFE. {"

At the opening of brief interview
published yesterday Secretary Whitney,
rising to the full height of the great oc-
casion, congratulated himself and the
country that, although Mr.. Roach has
failed, "the government is safe"
Again, near the close OF the same in
terview, Secretary Whitney, still main
tanning in his peroration the sublime pa
triotism of his exordium, proclaims,
with unaffected joy, that "the govern.
ment is safe"
II the event to which the Secretary
refers-the fuilure of John Roach-were
less sad, the Secretary's congratulations
on the safety" of the government would
be more ludicrous.
But, deplorable as that occurrence is,
far-reaching and lasting rs its influence
for evil must be, one cannot help being
amused at the notion which seems to
have gotten into the mind of Mr.. Whit
ney-that the government might have
been wrecked by the fall of John Roach.
The Secretary, in his twice-repeated
and joyous assurance that, although
poor Roach has gone down, the
government still stands in safety, APP
pears like the solitary passenger in
small boat who has barely escaped GO
ing down to destruction in the eddying
swirl of sinking ship.
But is the Secretary of the Navy quite
sure that the government is as safe as 1t
was before Roach went downE True,
there was no danger that his fall
would crush the dome or break the
pillars of the republic. There was
no danger that the government would
suffer the loss of penny by his
failure, because large sums of money
faithfully earned by Roach, hon
estly due to him, and regularly appropri-
ated for him are still in the United States
treasury-kept from him in his hour of
need by the arbitrary power of Secretary
Whitney.
But there are other dangers than the
loss of money. There are worse mis-
fortunes for government than the risk
of loss by a failing contractor, especially
contractor who is backed by valid
bonds.
Does not every shipyard capable of
turning out war-vessels add to the safety
of the government
Is not the possession BY our nation
of such man as John Roach, and OF
such magnificent establishments as his,
an element of safety which we cannot
afford to deprecate9
Is it safe policy for government to
crush out one of the few men who have
established the great iron shipbuilding
industry on this continent, and kept the
American fag on the high seas floating
over American bottoms
Suppose the same p ,licy to be pur-
sued toward all our iron shipbuilders 81
there are not more than four or five Of
4 them--where would be the safety of the
government in time of war?
Shall we depend on navy yards,
knowing that we have not single yard
that has the plant to build an iron or
steel ship, and that we have not single
naval constructor who knows anything
of iron or steel shipbuilding The
safety of the government would be i'm
periled by such dependence.
Is the government altogether safe
when its plighted faith is violated by
the rejection of work performed under
the direction Of and approved by the gov
ernment's sworn agents ?
Does such treatment of men who offer
their capital and enterprise for the serv-
ice of the government tend to create
that confidence which is the surest guar
antee of safety?
In all seriousness we ask, how long
will the government be safe if it contin'
ues the policy of repudiating contracts'
Our government is the peoples govern
meut, its safety resides in their respect
for it. What will come of that respect
if the solemn covenants of the execu'
tive authority are to be whistled down
the wind as means of manufacturing
| marty capital?