Evening star., 1921-02-19
Editorial Digest
Our Shrunken Army.

Just how big an army the Amerf-
can people want is hard to tell from
the editorial comment upon the pas
sage. over President Wilson's veto.
of the bill calling for maximum of
$4,000 men under arms. Most writer's
apparently accept the limit set by
Congress as satisfactory, but of those
who discuss the method by which it
became a law, great number are
apparently less interested in the issue
itself than in the fact that so few
congressman were found to support
the President.
An interesting viewpoint is taken by
the Des Moines Register independent
republican,, which understands the
Presidents position, but does not
approve" of it. The President be-
lieves.' it declares. that if a league
of nations is not formed to force
world order America is bound to
stand isolated in world affairs. and
needs the support of a powerful army
and navy but the trouble with this
position is that nobody ever takes
1t in good faith" partial answer to
IN THIS attitude comes from the FL Paso
Times (democratic), which remarks
on the fact that Wilson. Baker and
Daniels have been criticised for their
assuming the roles of a militant
advocate of preparedness" which it
does not find unnatural because of
the former 'pacifist leanings."
Indeed, the veto. in the opinion of
the st. Louis Post-Dispatch Gnde-
pendent, gives us taste" of what
the reputation of the league at the
polls "is to cost US in Army and Navy
budgets" and this foretaste is "in no
way qualified by the fact that the
resolution was passed over the veto.
Among those who definitely express
themselves as favoring Il larger Army
regardless of their attitude toward
the administration. is the Providence
Journal independently. which makes
its plea partly on the basis of the ed
ucational work the new Army is do
ing:
"It is not merely question of
economy. although preserving this
run. economy. 1t is not simply a ques-
tfon of national safety, although that,
too. must be considered; but it Is now
essentially the question of violating
the pledged faith of the republic and
that cannot be permitted"
ent republican, says that "for once
President Wilson has shown sound
judgment" in vetoing the bill, for
though reduction in the Army to
l75.oOo men is prompted by economy"
it shows that "this desire is degener.
the contention of the President the
Tacoma Ledger Gndependent) points
out that his arguments were based
upon the calculations of the War De-
partment general STAFF. which body
most people will be inclined to con-
slider, better qualified to Judge than
members of Congress"
The Mobile Register (democratic)
believes that the action of Congress-
will mean false economy" and will
n mi
efficiency. 1t is proof positive to tn"
Chicago Tribune independent repub-
lican) that Congress shows "as Grass
an ignorance of the bitter lessons OF
1917 and 1918 as its predecessors did
Of the same lessons in 1851 and 1898
The indianapolis News (independcnt)
likewise feels that the resolution
makes the Army mot only smaller
but less efficient" and the Mancheste,
Union (independent republican, ex-
dispute resulted as it did. for "Presi-
dent Wilson. from military view
for his veto.
Admitting that criticism of the new
bill as passed "is logical and sound"
ana that considerable adjustments
Will be necessary" the Topeka Capi-
tai (republican) feels that Congress
has voiced the sentiment Of the
country when it gave "the plan for
a big army stunning blow" The
Dallas News Independent demo-
cratic) also believes that 1.-The coun-
try is not apt to be more responsive
to the Presidents argument" than
was Congress.
The Sioux City Uowa) Journal (re-
publican) finds "President Wilson's
reasons for vetoing the resolution
neither compelling nor convincing"
and the Wheeling Register (demo-
cratic) while it declares that the con-
gressional action in this case as ir
others where it overrode the Presi.
dents veto. purely POLITICAL" still
"canddly admits it sees little rea-
son" for a larger Army.