evil would rise refreshed, like a giant refreshed with wine. It would go forth for destruction and ruin upon all the best interests of society and social order. The Senator's argument proves this if it proves anything-that the system of punishment, severe as it was, was not more than adequate to preserve a tolerably sound and healthy condition in the naval branch of the service, and, in my opinion, it proves nothing more.

Sir, I should be extremely glad to see a state of things in which the marine service is carried on always, and in all circumstances, by free and willing minds; and where, under the stars and stripes, there shall never be a necessity for resorting to any punishment. We would all rejoice at it.

I should be extremely glad to believe that the particular punishment alluded to can be dispensed with; but it does not help forward the consideration whether or not it ought to be dispensed with to say that it is treating the sailor like a slave. That, I admit, conveys to the mind something shocking and terrible. Why, the honorable Senator would not at all object to confining the sailor who had been guilty of misbehavior in irons or in double irons. I think it would be extremely difficult to show how a man could exhibit more the appearance of slavery than Iwith his hands and legs manacled with double irons, and he himself locked up in prison on board ship. It would not be thought right, if I objected to that punishment, to say that putting a man in irons was treating him like a slave. In one sense of the word, whenever we seize an offender and restrain him in the exercise of his liberty we are treating him like a slave, but we are treating him like a slave because he has shown himself to need such treatment. We take from him that liberty which he has abused-he shows that he is not worthy to exercise the freedom of heaven, and we are obliged to take away some of his privileges.

Doubtless there have been men who have been so happily constituted in the command of an armed force as to be able to lead about their troops, as it were, by a charm. There may have been men under whose command punishment was unnecessary. The poet has told us, of the gallant General Wolfe, that "his example had a magnet's force, and all were swift to follow whom all loved." Still, if the general who commands the army be not that attracting magnet which induces his men to follow him from love, the interest, not of the officers, but of the country, requires that the men should be made to follow him from fear. Why, the poets tell us that the herds voluntarily followed Orpheus when he moved through the fields; but the ordinary herds

men of that day were under the necessity of carrying goads to drive before them their reluctant steers.

We cannot argue from these particular instances; we must adapt our law to the general condition and character of mankind; and I think it would as unwise to speculate upon the capacity of officers of the navy superseding stringent and effectual punishment by attracting the love of their sailors toward them, as it would be if any fortunate herdsman in ancient times had said he would take a flute or a fiddle, throw away his thong, go out into the fields, and endeavor by piping to induce his cows and kine to follow him home to their pasture.

The petition in favor of restoring flogging was not granted.

CHAPTER VIII

A GREAT NAVY [1887]

Liberal Naval Policy of William C. Whitney, Secretary of the Navy under President Cleveland-Debate in the House on the Increase of the Navy: In Favor, William McAdoo [N. J.], Thomas B. Reed [Me.]; Opposed, William S. Holman [Ind.], Richard P. Bland [Me.], William C. Oates [Ala.]; Bill Is Enacted.

A

FTER the Civil War interest in the navy languished. The President, as a rule, utilized the position of Secretary of the Navy in his advisory council as a place for an influential member of his party whose opinions on political policy in general might be of value, but whose conduct of his special department partook of the nature of routine.

When Grover Cleveland became President, however, he chose a vigorous man-of-affairs, William C. Whitney, as secretary of this department, who took most energetic steps to build up the navy at least to the rank of the naval establishments of the second-class European powers.

In 1887, in response to the urging of President Cleveland and Secretary Whitney, Congress in its appropriations for the Navy Department provided for the completion of ships authorized by the acts of 1885 and 1886, and for the building of seven new war vessels and their equipment.

INCREASE OF THE NAVY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 26, 1887

This appropriation was opposed on February 26, 1887, in the House by William S. Holman [Ind.], the "Watch-Dog of the Treasury."

Admiral Porter. THE QUEEN HAS TAKEN YOUR JACK. YOU NEVER could PROTECT YOUR JACK, MR. SECRETARY (And they go on with their little game, never heeding the signal of distress from the Onelda)

From the collection of the New York Historical Society

Mr. Chairman, there is an extraordinary demand at this time in certain sections of the country for the appropriation of large sums of money for the construction of ships of war, the building of forts, the manufacture of guns and torpedoes. Our present navy is above the standard of our navies for many

years. It is greatly beyond the strength and capacity of our navies of former years in time of peace.

Mr. Holman here presented statistics of the cost of the navy, including that which would be occasioned by the passage of the bill. The fourteen war vessels and four monitors already contracted for within three years involved an expenditure of $21,319,000. The seven new war vessels proposed by the bill would cost, exclusive of equipment, $4,950,000, making a total of $26,269,000.

And the gentleman from Maine [Charles A. Boutelle] comes forward with a further amendment to add ten steel cruisers and proposing to appropriate outright $15,000,000 for that purpose and $4,800,000 for the armament of the vessels, in all $19,800,000.

We are moving rapidly. Last year the entire appropriation for the navy, including $452,695 embraced in the sundry civil bill, only reached $15,070,837, but the enormous increase is seen in the fact that only twenty-eight years ago the entire annual cost of our navy was only $10,000,000.

And yet twenty-eight years ago we had as large a field for the employment of a navy as we have to-day, and, indeed, larger, for then the power and resources of our Government were not so well known, especially to remote nations, as they are to-day. This is rapid progression. Ingenuity itself is being exhausted for methods to reach the surplus in the treasury and maintain the present high rate of taxation. Within a few days bills have been reported to us from the Senate providing for the expenditure of $51,000,000 for war ships, fortifications, and munitions of war. If we were actually on the verge of war with a great naval power gentlemen could not display a greater solicitude for warlike preparation; this $51,000,000 equals the entire cost of the Government thirty-five years ago.

The Senate is demanding the expenditure of vast sums of money on fortifications which the experience of the late war shows would be of no value if an emergency for their employment should arise. It seems to be taken for granted that our people will tolerate these vast expenditures because they are demanded in the name of patriotism and for the public safety. Yet the experience of every war in which we have been engaged has demonstrated the fact that, when the calamity of war comes, our people are fully equal to the emergency, and that the sup