The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-09-07
GOV. JOHN lind ACCEPTS THE Dual NOMINATION.
his original code Of morals? Why did
he permit Hanna to revise it?

his original code Of morals? Why did
he permit Hanna to revise 1T?
WILL NOT DISCUSS IT
The truth of the matter is that we
est discussion of this question, at least
not upon the moral side of the contro-s
versy. They will not listen to It IL
we appeal to the constitution, they say
Declaration of Independence, they say
that that document is a collection of
glittering generahties, good enough in
their day, but not applicable now. If We
cite them to the maxims of Washington,
Jefferson and Lincoln, they say they are
dead. Our only recourse, therefore, is
to demonstrate to the people the falsity
of the claim that imperialism will pay
A colonial empire may prove profitable
to the trusts and to the army AMI navy
contractors, ami TO the favored ndivid-
uals but it lever can and never VIII
profit the country or the people as a
whole
The only way in which the American
people could secure gain from the possess
sion of the Philippines would be by the
expansion of our trade with them. The
profit OF such trade in the nature of
things could not be greater than the
value of the commodities that should pass
in exchange. The total value of the ex-z
ports and imports of the Philippine ISL
andS have in no year exceeded $50, 600, go.
The profit on such trade cannot be many
millions, and supposing 1t doubled,
trebled or Quadrupled, the profit would
not be large enough to bear the expense
OF the increased military establishment
We're great or small, one thing is certain:
Those profits would not return into the
pockets of the same people who have to
bear the burden of maintaining the army
ana navy necessary for and incidental TO
colonial empire. But the whole argument
is fallacious; as was we'll said by Mr.
Bryan. you need not own a people to-
trade with them. A friend Is a better
customer than an enemy. If we want
the trade of the Philippines, let us Sc
cure 1T as we secure other trade, by the
superiority and cheapneSS of our prod
ucts, by fair treatment and by Ele es-
adjustment of mutual confidence and re-
latfons of good will. These are the condi-
tons that bring trade-not conquest not
the question of the profits OF Imperialism
You must not lose sight of the expense
of its companion evil-the large standing
army.
THE LARGE ARMY:
When l was member of congress,
when we were building and providing for
the navy Which fought and won the VIC
tories of the Spanish war, when we had
the same regular army establishment that
we had at the commeI Cement of that W ar
the total appropria ton for the army and
navy in no Year during my term of sery-
ice exceeded $50, 0O0, Goo This amount was
not exceeded In any year prior to the
Spanish war, except 1887, when it reached
$S2,OO0, U00. That the standing army that
we then had was ample and sufficient
1or the protection of our country and in
SututlonS Is matter Of history
When the war with Spain broke ont
and the President made a call upon the
states for additional forces, that call was
responded TO almost before 1T was made
And it Is no exaggeration to say that if
the exigencleS had dema nded ten men
could nave been had for every one that
was required. A large standing army
may be necessary for the purpose of i'm
perial1sm, but 1t is not necessary for the
protection of republican institutions. and
Its necessity had never been urged until
IMPERIALISM made it's appearance. A pop
ular government while it should have a
small number of trained and efficient
regular troops and a sufficient number of
ollcers FOR manning. Its defenses, for
case or need for larger forces should relv
In the main for the defense of its in
stitutions on its volunteer soldiery. This
We have done in the past and this is in
harmony with the theory of our institu
tons and the views of the fathers. Gen.
Knox, Revolutionary soldier, who was
t Inc nrst secretary OF war under Wash
ngton, and under whom our army estab-
hshment was organized, used this Ian
guage in his first report, which was for
Warded to congress by President Wash
lngton with his. approval:
1t is the intention of the present at
tempt to suggest the most efficient sys-
TEN OF defense which may be compatible
with the interests of a free people.
The modern practice of Europe with
respect to the employment of a standing
army has created such mass of opin-
ION In their favor that even philosophers
and advocates for labor have freouenr-
ly confessed their use and interest in
certain cases. Whoever seriously and
candfdly estimates the power of discin-
line and the tendency of military habits
will be constrained to confess that what
ever may be the efficiency of a standing
army In war, it cannot in peace be con-
sidere ID as friendly to the rights of hui
man man nature A small corps of
well disciplined and well informed artil-
ier1sts and engineers and a legion for
the protection of the frontiers and mag
azineS and arsenals are all the military
Tor the present use of the United States.
The privates of the corps to be enlisted
Tor a certain period, and after the ex-
p1raton OF which to return to the mass
OF the citizens. An energetic and nation
al militia is to be regarded as the cant
tai security of a free republic, and rot
standing army forming a distinct class
IN the community. Tt Is the Introduction
and diffusion of evil and corruntion ~
manners into the mass of the people that
renders a standing army necessary. It
is when public spirit is despised and
avarice and Incidence and effemInacv IF
manner predominant and prevent the es-
adjustment of institutions which would
elevate the mind of the youth in fhA
pdlIS VI virtue ana hOnOr that thA
standing army is formed and riveted to-
ever"
WHY ANY INCREASE?
Are the people of the United States
prepared to turn their back on these
words of caution from the past? What
reasons are assigned for the increase of
our standing army to 0,0O0 according
to the imperialistic programme? They
say that we have grown to be a great
populous nation, and, as such, should
nave respectable army like the other
powers OF earth. If empire and con-
quest are our programme for the fu-
lure, perhaps, yes. If the protection of
our institutions and the DEVELOPMENT Of
our industries and commerce is our aim
then l say, no. There may be good req
sons for an increase In the naval estah-
hshment, for the states have no naval
militia, but there is none for the MATER
ial increase of our standing army. Brt
instead of arguing this proposition on
theoretical and political grounds. let us
look at 1t from the taxpayers stand
point Let US count the cost of our
present military establishment Let me
cite you to the last report of the secre-
tary or war. He says, on page so:
The summary of expenditures for the
hscal year 1892 appropriations and al
iotments for 1900, and estimates for 1901
is as follows: -''-
g. gggsge .