Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1920-03-20

Secretary Daniels declares that if America
does not join the League of Nations it must
build "incomparably the greatest navy in the
world
The LINCOLN STAR Ind.) indorses the
secretary's view, arguing that the United
States must be either for the league or
against it. We are, at present, ''the only
powerful nation outside the league, and log
1cally the task of supplying the anti-league
military strength falls upon this country's
shoulders"
"Unless the United States is as strong as
the League of Nations the STAR argues, cit
is subservient, in theory at least, to the
league and might as we'll be a member of the
league, even though at the great sacrifice
which the obstructionist senators say it
would mean to become party. If the United
States is not to become subservient there is
but one road open, and that is an immensely
enlarged navy and army"
eff we refuse to take a place in the
league" declares the SAN ANTONIO Elk
PRESS Gnd. Dem), call the nations would
consider themselves required, in 'self-de-
fense,' to go on charging their navies, with
the result that such rivalry would force the
United States either to outdistance all other
countries in this respect, or sink to the posi-
ton of second, third or perhaps fourth place
among the nations of the world" The PORT
same mind, believing that "by accepting rea-
sonable reservations we can obtain the pre-
dominant position in the league" and "can
escape the necessity for a great navy" but
that IF world-beating navy should become
necessary, responsibility must be shared by
the death battalion and the Wilson stand
patters."
'"The country is at peace or at war"
submits the NEW YORK WORLD (Dem.) :;
there is no third condition. 1t must seek
peace or prepare for war;, and the DAY
TON NEWS (Dem) declares that out of
the league "Americas isolation would be so
complete and so hazardous to the future of
this country that hard-headed business men,
as well as the man who occupies a humber
sphere in the affairs of the nation, can easily
Imagine that the safety of America will de-
pend in large measure on our sea-power."
The WICHITA EAGLE (Ind) points out
that:
Cali the powers that lately were our as
sociates in war owe us great sums of money,
and many of them would be glad Of an ex>
cuse to quarrel with us and refuse to pay
their debts, if they thought they could sue
coed in the stroke. If we do not join in a
league with them, they assuredly will join in
a league against U.S."
Besides cost of building the largest navy
in the world the ALBANY ARGUS Und.
Dem) reminds us, thousands of our young
men will have to be taken from the produc-
tive pursuits of peace to man the extra war
ships" and the UTICA OBSERVER (Dem.)
thinks it 'unfortunate' that this nation,
foremost in advocating arbitration, inter-
national courts and law, reductions of armies
and navies . q. stands out against rea-
sonable method for the peaceful settlement
of international differences and in favor Of
gun-toting by the nations"
So much for the arguments in support
of Secretary Daniels position. On the other
side, the FARGO FORUM (Rep.) denounces
Mr.. Daniels .as "our chief jingo," pointing
out that we need no great navy for de
fensive purposes" since "the war with Ger
many demonstrated the impossibility Of land
ing an army a hostile coast and main
taining\it there, and that therefore unless
Secretary Daniels plans to pick scrap with
Great Britain there is no excuse for sink
ing hundreds of millions in incomparably
the greatest navy that will become junk in
ten to fifteen years." The INDIANAPOLIS
STAR (Ind. Rep.) agrees with this: we
are not looking for conquest" it says, put
for protection. So long as we have the force
requisite for our own defense we do not need
to worry about what some other nation has. y
The IDAHO STATESMAN (Rep) regards
the Daniels idea as meant merely as chal-
lenge to England" and believes that II the
secretary's advice Is followed, England Will
meet the challenge, or attempt to do so. A
competition of this kind will force enormous
increases of taxation for period Of years.
And all to what end? In support
of this view, the ROCHESTER DEMOCRAT