New-York tribune., 1903-02-22
LONDON S READING.
QUESTIONS OF EMPIRE, EDUCATION AND
ARTS IN THE FEBRUARY AfONTHLIES.


MILLIONS FOR RED TAPE DEFENCE.
For the average reader who may have ceased
to take absorbing interest in military reform
after The passing of his hot fit, it is well TO par
ticularize. The War Office ideal of strategy
gives US. in addition to recruits and non-eIIec-
tiyes, 10000 men for home garrisons: 100000
men, more or less. for the defence of London,
and a home field army of 10000 men; with
900 white troops for India and 10000 for the
colonial garrsOns. We must, therefore, carry
forward total OF half million men at least,
committed. by the nature of their functions and
the law of their recruiting, TO a task which Is
nothing more or less than a sineCure unless our
navy is driven from the seas. These numbers,
said Mr.. Brodrick to the colonial Premiers, are
certainly not deemed too large by our military
advisers in view of the possibility of our at any
time losing the command OF the sea. Ihe ven
is lifted and the murder is out! No words could
express more naTvely the entire absence of COM
prehension of the real problem that confronts
our military advisers The statement quoted
IS in direct conflict with the Duke Of Devon
shire's famous declaration of 1S96-''The main
tenance of sea supremacy has been assumed as
the basis of the system of imperial defence
against attacks from over the sea- The high
augurs are not in unison; are back in the
old, eXtravagant and disastrous system OF gov
ernment in compartments.
The question which all those who interest
themselves in great problems of national defence
are asking is this: How comes it that after
Mahan, COlomb, Thursfeld, Laughton and all
the series of brilliant writers on naval strategy
have laid down for US il letters of gold the plain
and incontrovertible principles of national
strategy, how comes it that our war once
should continue TO both preach and, 10 our
heavy cost, practise theory of war Whlch IS
the exact antithesis instead of the corolIary OF
our naval policy? ButtOnhole one Of those SOL
ernn old, gentlemen in Pail Mall whose daily
existence has only three fixed pOintS-the once,
the luncheon room at the Rag, and their West
KensingtOn fireside-stOp them and ask theln
why they ask to pay for 64OotO men, rostIy
organized. to do nothing at home; ask Ihenl
when last England was invaded, ana Wny' ask
them who is going to invade US, ana now; dSh
them when last a British battery on the coast
fired a shot in anger; ask them when a tort IN
the interior of England or Scotland was ever
of service TO man or beast. ASK then-and they
will not tell you, because they do not Know
and neither does any one (Blackwoods
Magazine.
WORKING a DOCTRINE BOTH WAYS.
Not TO invade the rights of American State
is to the United States an obligation with the
force Of law; to permit no European state 10 IN
fringe them is a matter of policy; but as she VIII
not acuuiesce in any assault upon their lnde-
nendence or territorial integrity, so she will not
countenance by her support any shlrklng OF Ihelr @
International responsibility. Neither Will she
undertake to compel then TO observe thelf IN
teruational obligations to others than herSeH'
To do so, which has been by some most Hlcohse-
quentIy argued a necessary coroLary Oh the
Monroe Doctrine, would encroach on the very
independence which that political dogma de-
fends for TO assume the responsibility which de-
rives from independence, and can only be trans
ferred by its surrender would De 10 assert
ouas slZerainty. The United States is ineVlta-
Flv the preponderant American power; but she
does not aspire TO be paramount She does not
find the true complement of the Monroe Doc
trine in an Underlined control over American
States exercised by her and denied to Europe.
It's correlative as forcibly urged by John Quincy
Adams at the time of formulation, and since ex-
plictly adopted by the national Consciousness, Is
abstention from interference in questions terri
toraIy European. These I conceive embrace