The Washington herald., 1907-07-06
porolu,ionirInr Our Naval policy

Revolutionizlng Our Naval Policy.
Two unctuous official statements re-
snecftng the proposed dispatch OF a battle
shin fleet to the Pacific appeared yester-
dav: one. from oyster Bay. OF an equivo-
cal nature. but fatty contradictory Of
Secretary Loeb's original official denial
that the fleet was to bc sent. made after
three hours conference with the Presi-
dent and the other a direct announce
meut from Secretary Metcan that he has
MANNED q cruise to- the Pacific coast FOR
the practice Of the squadron" and that
the people Of that favored region 'will
see one of the finest naval spectacles
ever witnessed in Pacific waters The
oyster Bay statement, however gives the
impression that although the fleet may
he sent TO the Pacific it will be brought
back to the Atlantic after few months.
Both statements agree that the proposed
cruise has no military significance, an as
scrtiou that Is received by official Wash
lngton. according To the chief newspaper
organ Of the naval revolution, with po-
lite increduIty." The tentative tone of
the Oyster Bay outgiviug indicates that
no final decision has been reached i'm the
matter or. at any rate, that no order
has been issued dlspatching battle ships
to the Pacific. and there is an iutimatIon
that none may be given; but the Secre-
tary of the Navy. intent on providing his
friends and neighbors with an eye-opcning
naval spectacle. evidently considers the
whole thing settled.
We are not concerned with rcconcilins
the Oyster Bay and Oakland points Of
view. The one displays hesitation and
the other certainty. but neither is ineon-
sisront with the Interpretation which in
evitahly will be given both statements.
that they forcshadow am attempt to bring
about a revolution i'm our naval policy of
the most momentous national c1nse-
quence Official targiversation may desig-
nate an important naval maneuvcr as q
practice cruise but that viii not serve
10 cloak the f8r-rcaching designs of those
who are directing the naval revolution.
Indeed. they make no attempt ut con-
cealment Of their purpose 10 insist that
the American navy Doe practically doubled
in size. SO as to maintain "two-ocean
standard" Moreover. 10 maintain Pa
cifc fleet constantly capable Of coping
with that Of Japan will neCcssitata our
keeping pace with japanese naval CON
structiou. while the enforcement Of the
Monroe doctrine and the protection of
the Caribbean entrance 20 the Panama
Canal viii require the construction of an
other Atlantic flee, equivalent in strength
To the one it is proposed 20 transfer 20
the Pacific. To realize what an eNtraor-
binary change in naval policy this ambi-
tioUs and costly programme signifies. we
have but to recall President Roosevelt's
declarations. I'm two annual messages.
that the American navy was of sufficient
strength. and that no more was at pres
eut required than to keep it at its existing
size and efficiency. No later than last De
cembsr the President wrote:
I dl not ask that we continue 60 increase cur
navy. ask merely that {, be maintained at ITS
present strength; and this can De done aHls ul
replace the obsolete and outvcm ships }g ner and
good ones."
And in his annual message of 1895, he
said;
"Our navy, though very small relatively 20 the
uayiss Of other nations is for the present -I~cea,
in point Of numbers for our needs; and vaiIs we
must constantly strive &, make its efficiency higher.
there need be no additions 20 the total Of ships now
built and building save in the way Of substitution
.ef new shigs for old.
What has happened I'm the last seven
months, or in the last year and seven
months. to warrant embarbng on n naval
programme that means doubling the size
of the navy? The advocates Of this poll
icy say that the dispatch Of a fleet to
the far East will avert war, and that it
would be cheaper TO prevent way than TO
engage in it, This last is good enough
logic, but We are assured from oyster
Bay that the relations between the
United States and all other powers never.
were more peaceful and friendly than ar.
the present time" and are advised from
Oakland that talk Of japanese troubles
ought 20 be dropped.
If all this is true, what reason is there
to assume the danger of way, or TO take
means TO avert it? Are the people being
deceived as 10 the true state Of affairs?