New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-10-21
DEMOCRATS AND PREPAREDNESS
An Analyst, of Dr. Eos Article Praisins Mr. Wilson and His
Party Colleagues for Army and Navy Improve
ments-The Record Since 1898
To the Editor OF The Tribune.

To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir: The article by President Emer-
titus Eliot Of Harvard, published in
"The Atlantic Monthly" has been ably
criticised In your columns from the
point Of view that DR.. Eliot advocates
Mr.. Wilson's reelection because the
present Administration has demon
strated its capacity for neglecting the
first function of government, the pro-
lection of the lives Of citizens. II oc-
ours TO me that an analysis Of DR.. Eliots
reasons for the belief he expressed in
that article that the military and naval
legislation Of the last session Of Con-
gress shows the Democratic party to be
the true friend Of preparedness may
prove interesting.
His first reason Is that "the Demo-
cratic Administration and Congress
have made far the largest appropria-
tions for the increase and improvement
of the American navy that have ever
been made" The test Of the sufficiency
Ct a naval establishment is not, never
has been and never will be how much
money is spent upon it. The only pos
sible test upon which to determine the
size of our fleet is found in determin-
ing the task it must accomplish. Unless
it is capable of protecting the United
States and It's dependencies and OF en-
forcing our essential foreign policies
against the fleets of our probable enc
mics il is wasted investment, be 1t
never so costly.
Whether the recent naval bill will
meet the true test we do not know;
nor shall we until the war is over and
the losses suffered and to be suffered
by the fleets Of other powers and the
extent of their new construction (now
concealed) become manifest. Then we
shall be better able to appraise the
devotion to naval increase suddenly
shown in 1916 by the Democratic Ad-
ministration.
But we do know that for a consider
able period while the Republican party
was in power our feet met the true
test Of sufficiency. Between the years
1898 and 1904 large and well balanced
building programmes were voted, until,
during the first administration Of Mr..
Roosevelt, our navy became the sec
ond in the world and attained the
power necessary for the protection OF
our dependencies and Of the Monroe
Doctrine. 1t is true that not so much
money was spent upon 1t then as now,
but that has nothing to do with the
case. The only relevant fact is that
the necessary feet was maintained;
to spend more money than enough to
maintain an adequate feet would have
been gratuitous waste.
The period of consistent and ade-
quate naval construction ended with
the act Of 1904. There followed eleven
years when neither party did well by
the navy, though we maintained second
place for several years after 1904 by
virtue of the vessels authorized dur
ing Mr.. Roosevelt's first administra-
ton. In Mr.. Taft's term six capital
ships were authorized, four Of them
being voted in the two years before
the Democrats gained control of the
House of Representatives. During
Mr.. Taft's administration we lost sec
ond place to Germany; in Mr.. Wilson's
we lost third place to France.
DR.. Elot's second reason is that the
Democratic Administration proposed "a
considerable increase in the American
regular army" 1t may be conceded that
the army legislation was along sound
lines, in the main, so far as. 1t af-
fected the regular army, and will ulti-
mately effect a considerable increase
in that body, provided enlstments can be
obtained. There has hardly been any
considerable increase" effected yet,
however, for the increase Of about 49,
900 in peace strength is still mainly on