The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-11-03
TELLING SPEECHES
 MADE BY PARKER
tce.t,1asd from Pase Ope.)

- A u
 f6outf<,,ed from Page One.) |
 the history of the Panama affair. 1t
 heinr very doubtful whether Congress, even the Republican part of 1t. would if previously consulted, have approved the policy pursued by the administra- tfon. while the accomplished fact easily commanded the acceptance of the ma | 3ority.
 .aThis power of the executive Is evidently a dangerous one, dangerous to the peace of the country as well as | to the Integrity of our institutions un- | less the President cherishes con- scientious respect for the Constitutional | limitations of his power. and an over ruling desire religiously to observe the spirit and intent as we'll as the letter of the Constitution, as well as an in- nate love of peace and fair dealing. You
 may judge for yourselves how danger ous is such power under the influence of the imperialistic tendency. with It's lust of conquest and dominion. It's love of advanture and military acnieve- ments, and its proneness to impulsive
 action and dramatic display.
 'The imperialistic tendency armed
 with that power will be all the more
 dangerous when 1t is at the same time
 armed with an ample supply of lighting
 material ready for action. Until a
 very recent period. we enjoyed the
 priceless blessing of living in perfect
 peace and security without bearing the
 burden of a large army. and navy cost
 ing untold millions year, unique
 privilege of which other nations. groan-
 ing under heavy military and naval
 expenditures. envfed us most heartily.
 Greater Army and Money.
 NN.,~ tarf let faiI | that thiS
 must cease to be so. According to
 them, we must have a much larger
 army in proportion than before. and our
 Secretary of the Navy assures us that
 we must have the biggest navy in the
 world. whatever the cost.
 .IIave you ever seen anybody able
 to give you an intelligent and satis- factory reason why we must have these things? Some say we must have them to protect our commerce. ask then. has there ever been a single moment since .the year 1872 when our com merce suffered in the last from the
 want of a big navy to protect it? Others
 say we must have 1t to enforce the
 Monroe Doctrine. Was there ever, be- fore or since our Civil War, a single
 occasion when the Monroe Doctrine failed, so to speak. to enforce Itself without our having a big army or navy?
 "our worthy Secretary of War. Gov ernor Taft, in recent speech before the Union League Club, illustrated without thinking of 1t. I suppose-how unnecessary a big army and navy are to us for any of these purposes. Hc said: Under the second Cleveland ad- ministration we were, by President C1eveland's message on the Venezuela boundary question, brought to the ! brink of war with Great Britain. How many guns do you think there were on l the coast? There was just one modern | gum
 After the laughter called forth by | that remark had subsided, Secretary | Taft continued: That taught the Re- l publicans lesson
 stopped Great Britain.
 Now, what was that lesson: That more guns should be mounted? But l did 1t occur to the Secretary that the real and far more important lesson was
 a very different one? Only recall the | circumstances under which that incl | dent took place. Great Britain en- gagged in boundary dispute with Ven- | ezuela, and urged her contention with
 characteristic positiveness. The Pres | ident of the United States stepped in and substantially said to Great Brit ain; Stop, you will not be permitted to impose upon the little republic by main | strength without a word from this re-
 public. This matter will have to be l arbitrated.'
 Great Britain, the mistress of the seas, by far the greatest naval power
 in the world, proud and touchy, with
 a Tory government, supposed to be the I special champion of that pride was l certainly not used to that sort of treat
 ment. She probably knew. too. that we had only one gun mounted on a | coast several thousand miles long. No | wonder that a good many people ex- | pected the British lion to break out in | a warlike roar. But what did Great | Britain do? The British Tory govern | ment took President Cleveland's re- | monstrance into respectful considera-
 ton and with graceful kindness as- | sented to the arbitration asked for. Now, what is the lesson of this? Not that we need big armies and na- vies for the defence of our rights and | the enforcement of our just demands. | but that whether we are armed or un- armed. every European power. even the greatest and proudest. will go to | the extreme of possible concession to avoid a serious quarrel with this re- public.
 No Wish to Fight America. | 'EVery SenSlDle IHdn hHOWS LHdL | there is not one of those powers which entertains the slightest idea of attack l ing us; that they will readily comply l with whatever we can decently ask for and that if we are to have any conflict
 with any one of them. we shall have to bring 1t on ourselves by unendura- bie provocation. The simple reason is
 that aside from what moral love of peace they may cherish, they can hard ly afford to have serious struggle with so resourceful and pertinacious an antagonist as this republic, in view of the possibility of dangerous compli- cations at home.
 "Our absolute safety from foreign aggression. as every reasonable per son will admit, being thus assured,
 may ask my sober minded countrymep for what purpose large armies and big
 navies--the characteristic tool and fa-
 vorite ornament of empire-may be
 wanted by us. Being entirely unnec-
 essary for defence, is the greatest navy
 in the. world. or any big navy, the cost
 of construction and maintenance of
 which will run into the hundreds of
 millions, needed or intended for any
 other purpose? The world abroad will
 but too probably see in 1t a design of