The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1922-06-30

TY MISSOURI FRIDAY, \
Reed drawled. at was wrong, Bro
thdP Long thinks, to give the farmers
30 p bushel for their wheat, but Bro
ither Long collected his share Of that
ll2O per cent profits Of the Graham
/ Paper CO..
|. Reed closed with his advice to get
back to the old Democratic principles.
Tie included an attack on the League
Of Nations, speaking Of 1t as a dead
tissue.
Explains Policy.
my critics love to assert that l am
q mere destructionist,n Reed said.
"They undertook TO prove their charge
\ by; asserting that have opposed a
number of schemes which were pro-
posed, and argue from this fact that
opposition to these schemes is a de-
stractive policy.
"They wholly overlook the fact that
the whole question is whether the
scheme proposed is one which will
bring benefit or injury.
''f the scheme is one which will
bring benefit. then opposition to it is
destructive.
IF, however, the scheme is one
which will bring injury, then opposi-
ton Is preseryative and, In sense,
constructive.
"By way Of illustration: II scheme
were advanced to abolish the Repub-
lican form of our government and to
substitute for it monarchy, the op-
ponent of such a. principle would be
one who sought to destroy the trai-
torous scheme. and. in that sense he
would be destructionist, but he would
De a destroyer of evil. He, at the
same time, would be preserver, for
he would be supporting the cause of
human liberty.
Opposed Big Army.
What l have said is, of course,
merely to illustrate the thought Let
us apply it.
Months after the armistice it was
proposed to create a standing army
Of 100000 men and a navy personnel
ofs250,000 sailors and marines, to-
tai armed force in time of peace of
more than three quarters of million
men.
"This huge establishment was to
cost 81 GAG, 200, 900 per annum. 1t was
nearly 100000 in excess of the total
expenses of the government prior to
the war. Of we deduct from those
expenses the Post Office appropria-
ions, we are counter-balanced by
Post Office receipts. and, therefore
need not be counted.)
u helped to defeat this plan, and,
therefore, may be charged with being
one of its destroyers, bat the destruc-
ton of this scheme saved our country
from the curse of a great standing
army. A fight against the scheme
was fight to preserve the ancient
principles of the Democratic party
and the ancient policy of our govern
ment, concurred in by all parties.
Compulsory Training.
"a scheme was also brought for
ward to compel every boy upon ar
irving at the age of 18 years to enter
the army for period of three months
and to then be enrolled in reserve
army.
time, without further authority from
Congress, be called out by the Federal
Government. Under the terms of the
bill not less than 25O,000 boys would
have been kept constantly drilling.
"T helped to destroy the monstrous
scheme. but in helping t6'Uestroy it, |
was helping to preserve an ancient
principle of Anglo-Saxon civilization
which has always denied to the gov
ernment the right to force military
service in time Of peace.
"I helped to destroy a scheme which
was nothing more or less than the
fastening upon America of Prussian
militarism, with the single except on
of the length of the term of service.
81 helped to preserve a doctrine
which has been recognized from the
first not only as fixed policy of our
country but as one of the most sacred
principles of the Democratic party.
To force military service in time of
peace and a huge standing army has
been condemned at all times by the
democracy and by the nation.
Saver $3,OOO,OOO,OOO
"The same bill which I have been
discussing proposed to establish a
great system of training camps, an
immense reserve army and huge ma
tional guard.
"The entire plan contemplated
military establishment in a time of
peace which would have cost the coun-
try not less than $4,000, 100000 per
annum. and would have involved an
additional economic loss of at least an
additional $1,00O,0O0000. (This as
sumes the average earning capacity
of the members of the armed forces
at $1,000 per annum.)
Opposition to such a scheme of |
military oppression was, of course,
destructive of the scheme, but was it |
not preservative of the ancient prin-
ciples of American liberty and Demo-
cratic doctine?
"The scheme / am speaking of |
would have bankrupted the govern
ment and would, to borrow an an
cient expression, strap soldier on |
the back of every breadwinner.'
Will Give Other Instances.
"Mr. Long has repeatedly stated
that he favored all Of Mr.. Wilson's
policies. He, therefore. would have