Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1916-01-28
QUESTION OF PREPAREDNESS.

QUESTION OF PREPAREDNESS.
lege contributed to the editorial page
of last Sundays Boston Globe an ar
ticle of notable strength and clearness
on the present movement for prepared
ness and the arguments which are
urged in favor of it. Those who advo
cate the building of great perma
nent military and naval establishment,
like those of the European nations,
President Garfield says, base their ar
guments on one of two assumptions
that we are in danger of invasion
from abroad, or that we MAJ be forced
into war by some overt act like the
infringement of the Monroe doctrine.
With regard to a possible foreign in
vasion he says that the experts usu-
ally base their premises on an expedi-
tionary force of 100000 men as the
least number that an enemy would at
tempt to bring against us, and he then
goes on to show what it would mean
to transport such force across the
ocean and land it with its modern and
indispensable equipment Of horses,
arms, field guns, siege guns, ammuni
ton and supplies of every kind. In
brief, according to the estimate of a
military expert of unquestioned au-
thority, not less than $50 ships would
be required to transport the men and
horses, and 1t would take at least as
many more-perhaps' even twice as
many-to bring the big guns and the
other military and naval equipment.
From this President Garfield s arti-
Gle goes on to show what the problem
would be of landing the men, horses,
guns and equipment from the ships,
"drawn up in four lines, say one mile
from shore, and each line 16 miles
long. How many stretches of maIn
shore 16 miles long have we9" 1t
would be impossible for such a force
to be sent against us without warning
of it reaching this country in advance,
anu IL NOulu nave our navy 10 RECKON
with.
In the second place President Gar.
field shows the extreme improbability
that any one of the nations now at
war would attempt to attack us in the
exhausted condition which will newt
ably obtain at the end of this conflict
whichever one may be victorious.
Modern history affords no example or
any such event having occurred
Based on these two well-grounded
assumptions, President Garfield argues
that there is no good reason why we
should now enter upon any such plan
of preparedness as will impose upon
our people great permanent benumb-
ing burden in men and money such as
is carried by the nations across the
sea. He has no sympathy with those
pacifists who would simply do nothing,
but on the other hand he would not
have us plunge rashly into great
scheme of military expansion, the bur
den of which must in the end rest
most heavily on the people of small
means-on those who must work for
their daily bread. He would have our
program of steadily increasing naval
strength adhered to, and he would
have our defences on both land ana
sea strengthened in every reasonable
way. The thing he would not have
our nation do is to rush blindly, on
the impulse of the moment, into such
an immediate scheme of military and
naval enlargement as will place us on
footing with the great powers across
the water. The objection to such a
plan is by no means purely a financial
| one-its cost in money. 1t concerns
our national ideals of our American
democracy, which ought not thus lightly
to be departed from.
The sentiment of the people as a
whole should govern in an emergency
like this. Haste is not necessary
mere expenditure of money is not pre-
paredness. We may with per-
feet assurance of safety devote our
selves to a nationwide and thorough
discussion of the whole question of
preparedness before adopting pro-
gram.
Such in substance, is President
Garfield line of argument and the
conclusion which he reaches. His
| dom, and we suspect it may prove in