Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1904-10-26
WEDNESDAY, October 26, 1904.
Cost of the Army.

Cost OF the Army.
The Democratic campaign book and
the Democratic orators are still barp-
ing on "militarisln" and charging that
our military establishment costs the
people more than does that of Great
Britain the English people. 1t is a
transparent falsehood, but it shows
the attitude of the Democratic party
toward class of citizens whom the
people of the North have delighted to
honor. The total expenditures Of the
War Department last year amounted
to $115 100000, and $37, 900 600 of
that was for the improvement Of rivers
and harbors, soldiers homes, govern
ment telegraphs and other items in no
way a part Of the expense of the
United States Army, bot expended
under the Administration of the War
Department because the government
engineers who had charge of the public
works are connected with the Army.
To make the cost of the Army ap-
pear large the Democrats add the
expenditure for pensions as a part Of
the cost Of the military establishment.
By such methods they assert that the
cost of the Army to the American
people is $3.50, 100000 year, when
this cost is about $75, 100000 or one
fourth of that amount. The war bud
get of Great Britain last year was
1910, GOO, 00Oss or nearly five times as
great as ours.
The idea of including the appropri-
alton for pensions in the war budget is
new one and it originated with
Senator Culberson Of Texas 1t is not
surprising that Texas Democrat or
any other Southern Democrat should
try to make the cost of pensions ap-
pear offensive and call it militarism.
The Southern Democrats have always
opposed the legislation to pension the
defenders of the Union who prevented
the Southern people from destroying
the Union. 1t is not difficult to trace
the opposition of Senator Culberson
and other Southern Democrats to the
pension appropriation. They object
to taking care Of the Ole soldiers who
prevented the south from setting up a
government of their own.
It is, however. curious phase of
this campaign, that Judge Parker and
the Northern Democrats who are sup
porting him for President have
accepted the Southern opposition to
pensions as the true Democratic
doctrine. The people of the North
have for fifty years sought to make
slight compensation to the Union
veterans who defended the flag and
they have approved the pension legis-
lation of Congress. There is not a
Northern Democrat running for con-
gress who will dare assert his intention
OF voting to repeal single pension
law on the statute books, but with a
Democratic Congress the Southern men
would be in control because they
would be in the majority and dictate
to the caucus.
Judge Parker and his southern
sunnOrtarS call the penSiOns mart Of
the '.militarism" to which they object.
AS the pension bill is much greater
than the cost Of the army, it may be
assumed that the Democrats regard
pensions as more Objectionable and a
greater danger as ''militarism" than
is the Army. The old soldiers and
their friends should see to it that the
Democratic party does not have an
opportunity TO revoke the pension
order of President Roosevelt or in any
other way interfere with the present
system of taking care of the defenders
of the Union. The way to insure this
is by leaving Judge Parker and the
Democratic candidate for Congress at
home where they will not be subjected
to the temptation to make good their
pledges to destroy this kind of ''mili-
tarism."
The state fight this year is indeed a