Evening star., 1940-07-17

our unpIcpdTeQneSS ana IOr the con-
seQuent danger of involvement in
war" ...
No responsible political party ever
promulgated more deceitful alibi
in all the history of political parties
in tine United States.
Let us take look at the record.
I do not relish the necessity to
indulge in partisan dispute over the
question of preparedness. 1t ought
not to be partisan question. But,
in view of the fact that the Re-
publican platform seeks to make it
partisan question, am not afraid
to discuss it on that basis.
+ Following the World War, the
nations sincerely sought peace and
disarmament. :, = .s ., :
The United States, in the early
days of the Harding administra-
ton, called the Washington Dis
armament Conferences. This con-
ference was hailed as a great step
toward lifting the burden of arma-
ments from the people of the ma
tions involved. War vessels were
sunk. Blueprints were torn to pieces
and ships under construction were
ordered scrapped. But following
this conference it turned out that,
under the administrations of Re-
publican Presidents, our naval build
ing program did not approximate the
ratio allowed by the agreement en-
tered into. Our actual ratio began
to fall below that which the treaty
allowed us to maintain. While 9TH
er nations built, We took a nose dive
in the ratio of our naval establish
ment.
Agreements of Nations
To Danish War Cited.
Then came the so-called Mine
Power Pact entered into by nine
nations during the control of our
Government by the Republican par
ty, under which the construction
and maintenance of an adequate
Army and Navy were still further
retarded.
Then came the so-called BRAND
Kellogg Pact" by which nearly all
of the nations of the world agreed
to renounce war as an instrument
of national policy.
This hope for world peace was
made the excuse for further reduc-
tions in appropriations and in con-
struction for our national defense.
I do not decry these efforts for
world peace. The American people,
in common with most of the peoples
of the world, sincerely hoped and
prayed that war would not again
drench the earth in human blood.
But it cannot be claimed by those
who were then in power in this Ma
ton that anything substantial was
done to build up or even maintain
the minimum requirements of our
national defense equipment.
In his address at the Philadel-
phia convention former President
Hoover made the statement that
in the six years preceding the
Roosevelt administration the Ma
ton had expended $3.50, ,000, 900 q
year on preparedness, but that In
1894 Roosevelt had drastically re-
duced expenditures for our defense
to $3.50 900 900, reducing the ap-
preparation for the Air Corps alone
by $4,000, 900; that President Roose-
velt had reduced by so per cent the
commissions issued the graduates
Of the Naval Academy; that the
National Guard had been reduced
in its appropriations and equip
ment; that the Roosevelt admin
istration had reduced the Regular
Army to the point of having only
$4,000 fully equipped men in the
United States Army.
Replies to Mr.. Hoover
On Military Reductions.
II Mr.. Hoover had made these
misstatements of facts in the heat
of debate, we might excuse him,
but in these delicate and unsteady
hours Of our Nations history the
people have a right to the truth
from one who has been honored
with the highest Office within their
power to bestow.
Mr.. Hoover did not make these
misstatements in the heat Of de-
bate. He made them deliberately
in the quiet, sequestered drawing
room where he composed his pre-
pared address. But when he made
these statements he knew that II
was he who, in his budget message
to Congress for the fiscal year end
ing June 80, 1884, recommended
the reductions to which hs refers