Oxford Democrat., 1915-08-03
The Cost of Defence.
From the New York World.

(From the New I Vrk WorluJ
The National Security League shows
that IL has cost the United States 81 ,OOO,-
OOOOOO in 10 years TO maintain an army
Of 10000, while for s65, 100000 Switzer-
land has had for 10 years citizen army
of 500. 900 always ready il needed. More
startling still are the facts il We total our
military bills for army, navy and pen
sions. When the great war began they
were nearly S4S7, ,000,0 900 a year, not in-
cluding some Sl0,000,000 paid by the
states for militia-more than any other
nation on earth then spent for military
purposes.
Great Britain in 1914 was spending
$3.50, ,OOO, 900 for navy, Sl20 900, 900 for
army and $50, 600, 900 for army pensions;
Russia S2S5, 900, 900 for army, Sl22, ,000,-
600 for navy; Germany $500, 100000 for
army, Sll4, 100000 for navy. France,
Italy and Austria Hungary were well
behind.
Our 19l3-19l4 army cost Of s17S, ,OO0,-
900 equalled that of Germany before the
imperial army act of 1918 in preparation
for the present war. Our naval cost of
nearly sl40, 900 was second only to
Britsiu's. Our pension bill of s179 ,0OO,-
600 admitted of no comparisons what
ever. There was nothing like it.
President Taft computes that our
active army costs Sl200 for each man,
The league figures a l0-year total cost
of $4,000 man. A large standing army
on such terms is out of the question.
For years we have been spending more
than any other country for war purposes,
past and future, without getting the
worth of our money. Ii is time for a
change.
From a reading of the above, without
taking into account anything else, We
are left with the Inference that one or
more of several things must be the case.
Either there is big amount OF graft In
our military expenditures, or they are
made wastefully and extravagantly, or
we are making an immense amount OF
unnecessary expenditures. Perhaps
there may be some degree of truth in
each of them. Certainly the standard OF
American life and expenditure is above
that of the European countries, and the
same product represents larger amount
paid to lsborers here than in Europe.
What the above statement does not in
clude is the uncalculsted loss to the
European countries in the withdrawing
from productive pursuits OF the young
men for certain portion of their life to
train them in the trade of destruction.
The case is something like that of the
burning of a factory or the destruction
of a railroad bridge. The actual cost of
replacing the property is one thing, the
loss by throwing workmen out OF en-
ployment or interrupting traffic is another
thing, difficult to calculate. II is to es-
cape the required military service that
thousands of immigrants from Europe
have come to America.
More important than anything else to
consider in comparisons between US and
European countries is tho fact that we
regard men as having value. The Euro
pean countries treat them as OF little or
no value, except as food for powder
The most striking illustration of our at
titude in the matter is the millions we
have paid, are still paying, and shall con.
tinue to pay, in pensions. From our
standpoint, a man or those dependent
upon him are entitled to compensation
for life, limb or health given in the de
fence of the country. The European
nations take the young man, make him
serve bis necessary time in the army
with little or no compensation, bury him
when he is killed, or send him home
manned to be burden, and those de-
pendent upon him receive the same
amount Of consideration.
Whatever may be the right thing to do
in the matter of preparedness" for
defence" one thing NAV be regarded as
certain, that in the United States of
America, whether our ideal be more or
less militsristic, or even on the peace at
any-price basis, our expenditure must
and will be on the principle that men
have value,