The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1916-01-26
SENATOR cuMMINs ON GOVERN.
MENT MONOPOLY IN NUM-.
TIONS MANUFACTURE.

Senator Cummins has declared him.
self in favor of government mono
poly Of the manufacture of munitions
His arguments are the stock argu-
ments: that it would prevent private
gain from public need; that it would
Withdraw the temptation of private
firms to foment war; that the private
munitions plants are in the east and
liable to attack. and that we could not
jeopardize our neutrality in future
wars by selling munitions to belliger-
ents. sg
These are arguments for govern.
ment manufacture of munitions, but
they are not arguments for exclusive
manufacture by the government. The
government out to have arsenals suf-
ficient in size to turn out enough mu-
nitiOns for peace needs. Some plants
can, and should be placed in the center
Of the country, away from danger of
attack and capture.
The governments ability to turn
out its own shells at cost would put
purchasing from outside on competi
tive basis. The results of experiments
could be kept secret from other couE.
tries. We could avoid such holdups as
have been perpetrated by the social.
ed armor plate trust.
But to exclude private firms from
the manufacture of war materials
would be to kill an industry which
would be imperative in time of war.
The people will never support plant
adequate in size to meet an emergen-
cy Of war. To pass law limiting such
manufacture to the government would
be to pass a law Which would have to
be repealed in time of need.
Even the enormous Krupp plant,
the largest organization for the pro.
duction of guns and ammunition in the
world, has been totally inadequate to
German needs. The Germans have
ttirers.
the war trusted in their government
arsenals. Until last June they stead.
lastly refused to mobilize industry for
the prosecution of the war. The Rus.
SLAMS, as we all know, went to battle
unarmed. The soldiers in the second
line OF trenches seized the rifles Of
those who had been killed in the first
line. The government arsenals. no mat
ter how. rapidly they were extended,
could not equip the army.
The United states will never sup
port arsenals to equip an army In case
Of emergency. In peace times they
coud not turn to making bathtubs or
cocktail shakers instead of shells. Pri-
YAte manufacturers would not permit
IT, But the manufacturers of bathtubs
and cocktail shakers in time OF peace
would have to turn to making shells
III time, Of war. And it is the duty Of
the government to keep the steel and
iron industries in such condition that
the, change can be made rapidly. Per-
hlps we do not want our government
to be dependent upon peaceful indus
try IN; time of peace. But it will have
to be dependent upon it in time Of
war. Professional armies do not fight
professional armies these days. Ma
tiDns fight nations. In little affairs I'll
Is civil life which fights also. Because
Ill energies of nation nowadays
must be diverted in war to the pur.
poses of war, it will not be wise to
kill off the most important of these
Industries in time of peace. The pro.
blenn of the government is to keepl
them as adaptable as possible. 1t
might even pay to substitute them in
peace times in order that they might
fill quickly the needs of the country in
emergency.
We cannot have security without
paying for it. It is choice between
supporting huge plant capable of pro-
yidinx US with ammunition in war time,
or of paying lesser amount to keept
private industry flexible enough for
war needs. Perhaps the government