New-York tribune., 1904-10-07
STRIKING DOWy THE NAVY.

Reform in expenditures must be had in
the naval establishment" said Judge Parker
in his letter Of acceptance. That sounds posi-
tive enough But what does it really mean?
How far would the Judges reforming energy
carry him? What would be left OF the naval
establishment when he got through with itl
These are questions Of vital interest TO the
American public Before asking n mandate
under which he can call general halt on naval
progress he owes 1t to the voter to explain
when and where growth is to stop and to what
lengths q policy of contraction and reduction is
10 be carried.
In suggesting retrenChment I'm naval expendi-
lures and a reduction of the navy Judge Parker
goes beyond the specific pledges Of the Demo-
cratic national platform. The st. Louis conven-
ton was willing to demand economy in a vague
and general way II was not equal, however
to countenancing a definite raid on the navy
Captain Richmond Pearson Hobson sat in the
front row at st. Louis as a delegate from Ala
bama. So long as he could focus his piercing
eye on the platform. neither the Hon. John
Sharp Williams nor the Hon Champ Clark nor
the Hon. John w. Daniel, who read the resolu-
tons, ventured TO lift a voice against the prof-
gacies' Of naval construction. The conventions
reforming zeal vented itself on the scattered
and undefended army. which il proposed TO re
duce 10 some Historically safe and sufficient
limit But the navy: never. No Historically
safe and sufficient" limit for the navy could be
urged while Captain Hobson sat there transhX-
ing and hypnotizng the shouters for economy"
With the platform o blank. then, what hint
can the country get Of the Democratic candi-
dates real purposes in demanding retrench
ment in naval expendi 1Ires? The New-York
World" which also balks at the nations set
tied purpose to build and maintain an adequate
and efficient navy. ventures to hint at what
may possibly be Judge Parker's inmost judg
ment. In answer 10 the query put by Pres-
dent Roosevelt, do our opponents intend 10
cut down the navy?" The World" says:
No. they 90 not intend to cut down the navy
But they do intend 10 set limit 10 the insane
expansion that is making II take more money
from the Treasury this year than all the cvl
departments Of the government together took
in the first year Of Mckinley.
Does Judge Parker hold that our present rate
of naval expansion is insane? If he does, the
country should know IT, By act approved
April 81 1904. Congress authorized the Pres-
dent TO have constructed these additional naval
vessels: One first class battleShip OF not more
than 10000 tons: two first class armored cruisers
Of not more than l4.500 tons each; three scout
cruisers Of not more than $3.50 tons each; two
colers and as many torpedo boats as could
be contracted for at net cost Of $SIOOOO The
total cost Of these authorizations was $23200-
900. This act was passed in fUrtherance of the
naval policy which this country has been pur-
suing for the last twenty years. 1t was passed
in each house of Congress without division
Both the Republican and Democratic parties in
Congress are thoroughly committed to the naval
programme embodied In this act and In many
similar earlier acts Does Judge Parker as
Presidential candidate repudiate the past rec
ord Of his party in Congress? Does he think
the addition voted this year to the navy an
extravaganza and an insanity? VIII he.
If elected endeavor TO have the provisions of
the act of April 81, 1904, repealed, and the
$23, 100000 appropriated by Congress for naval
construction returned to the Treasury? Win he
set his face like flint against any further naval
construction? When and where will his pro-
gramme of reduction" begin? Let us have
something definite about the pr posed crusade
against naval establishment declared to be
Ovcrblown and superuous.