New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-09-11
WOULD THEY CRIPPLE THE NAVY

WOULD THEY CRIPPLE THE NAffE
1.-The New-York Evening Post" has taken a
hint from Judge Parker's homily to the Demo-
cratic editors. 1t has put away Temporarily, at
least the maj r issues" of tariff taxation ana
1.-The attitude of the two candidates toward
law and is now beating the tomtom FOR re
trenchment in governmental expenditures" Our
neighbor views with alarm" the recent steady
increase in the governments outlay, and wants
to inaugurate return TO "Jeffersonian frugal
ity" 1t is as wary, however, as the Democratic
platform was, and as Judge Parker is, about
suggesting specific economies. Its programme
balks at any definite suggestions OF retrench-
ment. It is content to thunder for economy"
general economy"
Once In a while THE POST comes very close
to committing itself to some special line of
contraction. In its Saturday issue it dwells
with great concern on the growth IN recent
years of naval expenditures perhaps PreSi-
dent Rooseyet's favorite way of spending
money This last Is enthusiastically mis-
leading fling. The money spent each year on
the navy is voted by Congress, and the Presi-
dent can neither add a dollar to the annual
appropriations nor take a dollar from them.
Unlike the Governor of New-York, he cannot
veto specific items in an appropriation bill and
thus make himself a coordinate power In leg
islatiOn. Nor are his recommendations in any
way binding on Congress, which for years has
persistently shaped our naval construction to
suit its own opinions and theories.
Still. as The POST points out, Congress has,
10y the combined vote of both Democrats and
Republicans, been rapidly increasing the naval
appropriations. In 1901 the voted the navy
was 500. 600; in 1902, 67OO0O00; in 1908,
100000, and for 1904 $9S000,0O0. ''These
figures" The Post" says, speak for them
selves" II is true that to build new battleshps
and cruisers and to maintain them when built
cost money. 4 large navy is more expensive
than a small one. YET the money voted the
navy from year 10 year has been voted it in
pursuance Of plan adopted nearly twenty
years ago At that time the people of the
United States woke up to the necessity OF Great
ing an adequate naval establishment. In these
two decades their purpose to have such an es-
adjustment has been carried out, unchecked
by changes in administration. The two politi-
cal parties have WED with each other in sup
porting the navy Naval legislation has never
been a bone of partisan dispute. Any Eek
travagance" incurred in naval appropriations
has been incurred with the assent Of the two
great political parties.
Is 1.-The Post" willing, or is Judge Parker
willing to stand forth now and make the 'reck-
Iessness" of our naval expenditure political
issue? Are they ready TO say that naval con-
suuclion snail stop, ana IhaI naval eApenul-
ture shall be reduced? Do they want TO dis
mantle our feet and return to the frugal and
simple" conditions Of 1878 or 1880? If so, they
should have the courage TO state their opinions
fully and frankly
The Democratic National Convention would
not stultify itself by demanding reversal OF
the naval policy which the United States has
been pursuing since 1882. If the Democratic
candidate cares to advocate cessation of naval
construction. the Republican party will be de-
lighted TO meet him on that issue But, unless
he and supporters Of his like The Post" are
willing TO announce policy of naval reduc-
tion they should, in common candor and hon
esty, quit grumbling about ''recklessness and ex-
travagance" in our naval expenditures. They
should not hide behind such feeble innuendoes
as 'the figures speak for themselves" If they
really want 10 nullify the nations purpose 10
build and maintain an adequate navy.