Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-05-04

resolution, President Harding said:
I'm soberest reflection, the worlds
hundreds of millions who pay in
peace and die in war wish their
statesmen to turn the expenditures
for destruction into means Of con-
struction, aimed at a higher state
| for those who live and follow aft
er." A noble sentiment, endorsed
by every one who had no personal
pocketbook to fill through a big
army or navy, and would have en-
titled the president to the credit
due for its u%tterance, if events had
shown that he meant it. When the
naval bill was reported to the house
it provided for $1,000 men to han
die our diminished navy, and
Chairman Kelly demonstrated that
the number was sufficient. Their
came Nick Longworth with a letter
from Harding asking that the NUM-
Der of men be increased by 10000
and the house, with Harding's
words at the arms conference still
| ringing in its ears, voted the in
crease! What is the result? 1t is
that the naval expenditures for the
next fiscal year, instead of being
decreased from $410,000,0 600, the
figures for the present year, will
run about ten millions higher. This
is due partly to the increase in per.
sonnet above Chairman Kelly's fig.
ures, and partly to authorized" ex'
penditures, not actually appropriat.
ed in the bill, amounting to abou.
So7, O0O, 900. This is a peculiar leg
islative device used to make larger
funds available while showing
Economics" in the bill.
The bill as it finally passed the
house was a compromise between
the presidents wishes and the com.
mittee recommendation. and the
senate finance committee seems
disposed to get it go at that. AS
at present framed the naval bill
calls for about the same sum of
money expended before the dis
armament conference. The sums
saved by scrapping a lot of our
warships are eaten up by increased
expenses elsewhere. and more mer
and Earines for the vessels we
keep. The taxpayer is to have no
relief from the burden Of cost car
ried by the naval appropriation bill
1t is much the same way with the
army bill. The president, the sec
rotary of war. General Pershing
and all the high army officers are
yelling their heads off for more men
and money for the army. And they
have the same old arguments to put
forth for the necessity of these
heavy appropriations. The country
must be prepared to defend itself
against invasion by somebody not
mentioned. Military preparedness
must be kept up. We give the re-
publicans in the house finance com,
mittee credit for a genuine desire
to effect some economies in both
army and navy appropriations. But
they have been overcome by the in
~sistence of the president and the
senator's for a bigger army and
navy. We do not believe that there
is any country in the world that
would dream of a~ssaulting the
United States if we disbanded half
of our army, or all of it, for that
matter. No doubt we need a small
army to protect I'll southern from
tier and for police work where the
states may be unable to preserve
peace against revolutionists. But
the chance of our needing to repel
foreign invaders is SO small that it
is negligible at this time.
The promises of economy and
lower taxes made by the republi.
can party two years ago have
proved bunk. More than that, they
have made a worse record of ex-
travagance than prevailed in war
times. Only by deception and bor-
rowings and authorizing expendi-
lures without appropriations have
they been able to partially conceal
the fact that they have run up ex.
penses far beyond the tax income
and must sooner or later increase
taxes instead of diminish them to
balance the budget. They are 60
ing to have a hard time rendering
an account of their stewardship
next fall to the voters.