The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1904-10-22
MONEY SPENT BY
THE REPUBLICANS
PARKER GIVES FIGURES.
SHOWS HOW ADMINISTRATION HAS
BEEN WASTING MONEY.

New Jersey Delegations March
Through Roads Converted Into
Brooks ny Heavy Rain, to Esopus
10 Hear Democratic Candidate
Speak-Stsnd with Raised UmbreI-
las While Judge Parker Talks.
VIII Reduce Cost of the Army.
Esopus. n. ". Oct. 3l.-Judge Par
ker to-day addressed delegation from
Hudson county New Jersey, on the
subject of administrative extrava-
gance. answering a speech made by
Secretary OF War Taft, in which the
Secretary called upon the Democrats 10
give bill of particulars.
From midnight until afternoon to-
day the rain fell in torrents. Streams
overhowed, the roads were converted
into brooks and made nearly impassa-
BILE for pedestrians. Nevertheless the
New Jersey delegations formed a pro-
cession at the Esopus station OF the
| West Shore Railroad and marched to
| Rosemount.
Reaching Judge Parkers house. the
| delegation surrounded the veranda.
| Though the rainfall had ceased. tho
trees were dripping. and umbrellas had
to be raised When Judge Parker
stepped from the house he was greeted
| by cheers and handciapping.
ExtravnRRncc IN Evident.
Judge Parker said.
THE expenditures Of the govern
ment-says the admnistration-hav
been managed in spirit Of economy
as far removed from waste as from
niggardliness. That the expdndi-
lures Of the government have been
free from niggardliness cannot,
think. he successfully denied. hence 1t
should be and is frankly admitted.
| With the claim that the expenditures
have been managed IN spirit of
economy we must take issue. The
facts presented in support of the
charge Of extraVagance have not been
answered,
Judge Parker gave figures TO show
that II cost about $i66000. 900 more to
run the government last year than It
did seven years ago. That state
mert" he said. ION it's face raises the
presumption Of extravaganza and
waste a presumption which requires
| evidence to overcome.
Pensions viii Not stop.
"None has been presented. BY way
OF indirect answer to the Democratic
! charge Of extravaganza the inquiry
has been put by the administration
| whether we propose to cut off the PEN
| sions We answer, certainly not. And
we further assert that the inference
suggested by the question is not in
| genious.
"The amount paid out in pensions
has been decreasing every year since
1898. But for the unwarranted order
| No 7s. which was fully considered In
| my letter of acceptance, the amount
paid for pensions in the seventh pre-
ceding year would have exceeded the
| amount paid last year.
Tho inquiry is further made by the
| administration whether we would dare
! to reduce the cost of the army. We
| answer that most assuredly we would.
/ and we ask the people to decide be-
| tween the administration and the
| Democratic convention on that point
Would Reduce Cost of Army.
IN the year 1897 the War Depart
ment cost less than $40. 600 900, which
was about the average cost per year
| for the preceding twenty-slx years.
! This LAST year, year OF peace, the
| cost Of the army was $115, 900.
One Of the questions we now ask
! the people is: What is the use OF
spending more than double on the army
now than we deemed wise TO spend
/
| "A large standing army is unneces-
sary, so our statesmen thought and so
/ the result proved. 1t Is alike unneces-
sary, unless militarism is to become
| part OF our policy. If we are 70 play
| the role of the big policeman in the
South American states, requiring each
| to act according TO some administra-
J tion's conception OF 'decency IN indus
! trial and political matters and fur
| ther require 1t to keep order. and pay
! it's obligations, according to the stand
ard which may be set by each sue
| ceedng administration: and II, In ad-
! ditiol. the administration may at
pleasure see to It that the states gov
ern themselves well. and be prosper
! Gus and orderly according to the crit
terion which may be set by each ad-
ministration, then we should readily
| admit that we should have an army
costing $115.0OO.00O a year.
la south American states.
But the people have not as yet ap-
proved the administrations policy In
dealing with the South American
states. They have not yet said by
their votes that they are In favor OF
conferring upon the President the pow
er TO interfere with the internal affairs
OF South American state at pleasure
'"rhe President has not the power 10
declare a policy equivalent to threat
| OF armed intervention whenever ne
shall decide the circumstances justify
IT, An attempt TO exercise such a
power would constitute a usurpation
prohibited by the constitution OF the
United States.
Hence II is safe TO assume that not
withstanding the letter to Secretary
Root. which was read at the Cuban
anniversary dinner. no administration
will dare attempt to establish uni
versal protectorate over South Ameri-
can states. or 10 become responsible
for their msdeeds
what Monroe Doctrine In.
'Mr. Oiney admirably stated the
purpose of the Monroe doctrine In his
address at Harvard College March 3
1898: The vital feaHure of the Mon
roe doctrine is that no European Pow
or shau forcibly possess itself OF
American sod and forcibly control the
political fortunes and destinies OF its
people
''That Is the national position. and
II VIII be maintained.
But how South American states
shall behave toward each other. or