The news & observer., 1900-10-28
CHAMP CLARK 5 LETTER
Vast Navy Proposed by
Republicans.
RIVAL RNGLAND'S FLEET.
Imperialists Demand Preposter-
Gus Outlays.
RIVAL ENGLAND'S FLEET.
WOULD RAISE A MIGHTY ARMY.

Have Military Force In Pro-
portion to Our Population - That
Means Eighteen Hundred Thousand
Men-COst Would BE StupendOus.
New Features of the Philippine
Question-Menace to Old Soldiers.
TIocIxing to Bryan.
Especial Washington Letter1
It is amazing with what rapidity this
Philippine war has changed the opin-
ions of Republican statesmen. Until
this year nobody of any reputation
ever openly advocated the theory that
we should keep up military and ma.
val establishment Of vast proportions.
Now it is asserted by Republican lead
ers, both in congress and upon the
stump, that we should have a navy
equal to the largest in the world, which
means equal to England's. That would
take $31O,O00,O0O in cash to build bat
tleships of the first class, to say moth
ing of torpedo boats, armored cruisers,
destroyers and other smaller craft, for
England has GO more battleships, and
one of that class costs at least $1,000
600. To make q navy really equal to
England's would probably cost $1,000
100000. / believe as firmly as do the
Republicans in the wisdom of Sancho
PanZa's dictum that lin peace is the
time to prepare for war;" Consequent
ly I am in favor of a navy adequate to
all of our wants, but / am teetotaliy
opposed to any such monstrous folly
and preposterous extravaganza as to
undertake to rival England in the size
and strength of our naval equipment,
for we have no use for it, A man does
not have to be an idiot in order to be
a patriot.
Immense Standing Army.
1t is now vigorously contended both
in and out of congress and for the first
time that we should have standing
army as large in proportion to our pop
ulation as any other nation on earth
has, and men who have never given one
moments consideration to what this
proposition means throw high their
sweaty caps in air and yell for it as
though it meant great blessing for
the republic. What does this PROPOSE
ton mean? France, with population
of 33,OO0.O00, has a standing army of
100000 men; Italy. with about the
same population. has about the same
sized army. Germany. with a popula-
tion of over 100000. has al army Of
over 100000 men. and so on to the
end of the chapter The truth is that
every nation of Europe is groaning un-
der the great load of tax to keep up
its standing army. TO such an ex-
tent has this been carried that it is
said in Europe that every laborer car
ries a soldier upon his back. and while
the census figures have not all beer
published for this years census the
general estimate is that we have pop
ulation of about 76,000.000, not count
ing Porto Rico and the Philippines.
On the theory that we should have an
army equal in proportion to the stand
ing armies of other countries we would
have an army of about 100000 men.
for which we have no earthly use and
which would cost an annual sum at
the thought of which the overburden-
ed taxpayers must shudder.
When the bill to reorganize the ar
my was before the house. | catechised
my Republican friend. Colonel B. Il.
Marsh OF the Quincy district. who was
a brave Union soldier and who is a
leading member of the committee on
military affairs. as to the cost of main
tanning soldier in the regular army.
His reply to my inquiry was that the
average cost of maintaining regular
soldier while doing service in the Unit
ed States is about $1,000 per year. On
the basis of l,S00,000 regulars. at ST.
900 apiece. the cost of the standing ar
my would be $1.SO0.000.000 per year.
and there isn't a man living who can
give any valid reason or plausible ex-
cuse for withdrawing 100000 young
men from the ranks of the producers
and loading them upon the peoples
backs at cost which the mathematic-
al powers of the human mind are mad
eQuate to comprehend. The only way
to prevent this stupendous folly is to
elect Bryan and Democratic con-
gress. for there is no earthly sense in
electing a Democratic president with
out a Democratic congress to aid him
in his patriotic endeavors for the pub
lie veal. l repeat it that we have no
use for such n standing army or any
thing approximating it.
Strength of the Republic.
We have never depended on the regu-
lar army or a great navy for our de-
fense; we have never waged war in
which the volunteers did not do the
major part of the fighting, and the
United States never did carry on
war without success. The real strength
of the republic lies in the patriotism
and yalor of the volunteers, men who
are not professional soldiers, but who,
when the country is in danger. quit the
civil walks of life. shoulder their mus
kets, fight till the country is victorious
and then cheerfully lay down their
arms and return to their business