Is there any danger of a war with Spain? The Queen of the Antilles and her sister islands with her depleted coffers and heavy debt furnish us absolute security against danger from that direction. There is no friction between this country and France, Germany, or Russia. Wherein can there arise any cause for war between this country and any other? It has been said by some whose apprehensions had obtained ascendency over their judgment that owing to the defenceless condition of

our seaboard we were liable to be humiliated at any time. That the little South American state of Chili might send one of her ships of war into New York Harbor and lay that city under contribution or in ashes. Let the possibility of that assertion be granted. What of it? Will it ever occur? Are the rulers of Chili idiots seeking self-destruction? May we not assume that they are men of some sense and some knowledge of the history, numbers, and resources of this country?

Have they not heard of a war among ourselves which occurred a quarter of a century ago and continued four years. in which the total enlistment of soldiers on each side exceeded thirty-three hundred thousand, and which cost more than $3,000,000,000? Do they not know that if they were to assault one-even the smallest-of our defenceless seacoast cities that

before many months elapsed Chili would have no place on the map of nations except as an outlying territory of the United States?

It is utterly reckless to assert even the possibility of such a course upon the part of Chili or any power similarly weak, and hence that illustration of the necessity for numerous ships of war or coast defences has no force. Sir, it is utterly impossible for a sufficient number of nations ever to combine or form an alliance and bring men enough to our shores to whip us. With all the States united in defence of the flag, as they now happily are, the Union is invincible and can defy the world in arms.

Mr. Chairman, upon the subject of coast defence it does seem to me that the lessons we learned in our late civil war should not be forgotten. Was it not demonstrated time and again that no masonry-brick and mortar and stone, however skillfully put together-can resist the heavy projectiles which powerful guns can hurl against it? Nothing has yet been discovered which can resist them but earthworks, and these can be constructed with comparative rapidity and upon an emer

gency.

A very few first-class heavy guns may, and, I think, should, be constructed for coast defence and placed in New York Harbor and a few other important points. But as there is no prospect of early need for them, and as the inventions and improvements in gunnery and engines of war which are constantly going on render at the end of every decade all those previously cast almost or entirely useless, I am unwilling to vote any large sum for this purpose.

To use the mildest term applicable to a greater appropriation, I say it would be recklessly improvident. For twenty years we have had no coast defences and no navy worthy to be called such, and yet no nation has had the temerity or insanity to molest our commerce, insult our flag, or violate our rights. Whence comes the clamor now, in the face of this long experience and profound peace, for both coast defence and a navy? Some New England fisherman has lost his bait.

I do not like, when I can avoid it, to question the motives of others, but most obviously these three Senate bills providing for the expenditure in the aggregate of $46,000,000 originated and are advocated in obedience to either a mere sentiment of national ostentatiousness, a fear of invasion which is ridiculous because baseless, or they are the result of a well-devised scheme to take advantage of that unsubstantial and transitory popular idea in favor of building a navy, to make a permanent dis

position of the surplus revenue, and thereby dispense with the necessity of revising the tariff and reducing taxation.

One small but well-equipped gun factory, where experiments in the construction of a few first-class heavy guns may be made and subjected to the severest tests, is all that we need, and all that I will vote for in that direction.

We are often reminded of the injunction of the Father of his Country, "In time of peace prepare for war." That was full of wisdom when uttered. But the United States was a different country then from the United States of to-day. Then we were weak in numbers and resources, could scarcely stand alone, vast and powerful only in future possibilities. To-day, taking into the count all our advantages of numbers, resources, extent, and situation of territory, intelligence, courage, and patriotism of our people, this is the most powerful nation of the earth.

Money and credit are the real sinews of war, and that nation which in time of peace secures the most money and the best credit makes the best possible preparation for war. Pay our debts with the surplus revenue and stop the interest from running against the people. It is better for them that the surplus should be buried in mid-ocean than devoted to placing the country upon a war footing.

War is the greatest calamity to which a nation can be subjected. Let the people continue their peaceful pursuits. Let this great country continue to depend for its defence upon the affections of the people. Like a great giant, in the consciousness of his strength, let this nation, with no unrighteous schemes of diplomacy or conquest, unarmed but defiant in the maintenance of its rights, remain a marvelous example of peace and prosperity.

What need is there for such a naval establishment as the bills I have referred to provide for? Can we hope to compete with Great Britain, and in this respect become the rival of the mistress of the seas? That would involve this country in an annual expenditure which no administration could survive. Large appropriations and reduction of taxation are utterly antagonistic propositions. The true friend of the people, who honestly desires to reduce the amount of taxes collected from them, cannot be the friend and supporter of these propositions, involving such large expenditures.

Gentlemen should be consistent and get on the one side or the other of this question. You cannot ride both horses at once. Sir, I prefer to take the side of the people and lower

taxes. This country has no use for coast defences, a navy, and an army. Their maintenance would add many millions to the annual expenditure, and they might be used to overawe the people and diminish the individual liberty of the citizen.

Wherever a great navy and a standing army are established in time of peace they have always become permanent institutions of the nation and are never reduced. Let gentlemen consider well of the probable consequences before they vote to saddle such burdens upon those who are to succeed us.

Sir, there is too much of a disposition among some of our people to imitate European countries even in our legislation as well as in habits and manners. It is un-American and I despise it. Our Government is unlike every other in the world, and consequently the conduct of others should be of no force as precedents here. Let the burdens of this Government and its restraints of natural liberty rest so lightly upon the citizen that he scarcely feels them and contentment and comfort will be constant visitors to the poor and will knock with even hand at the doors of the palace and the cottage.

For the defence of such a Government in case of invasion a million of the best soldiers that ever enlisted in any cause would, in less than sixty days, be on the march to meet our country's foes. The seas would swarm with our privateersmen, and with our exhaustless resources and limitless credit the best ships of war would appear under our flag as though constructed by the hand of magic. Let us so legislate as to maintain a healthy sentiment within our own country; we have nothing to fear from without.

The amendment providing for the construction of the seven new vessels was passed by a vote of 151 to 72. The bill passed the House by a vote of 107 to 28. The Senate passed the bill with amendments. A joint conference was appointed, whose report was accepted by both Chambers, and President Cleveland approved the act on March 3, 1887.

CHAPTER IX

PENSIONS

Sen. Robert Y. Hayne [S. C.] on "Greed, Not Gratitude, the Animus of the Service Pension Bill"'-President Cleveland Vetoes Many Private Pension Bills; His Message on the Subject-Cushman K. Davis [Minn.] Introduces in Senate a Dependent Pension Bill-Debate: Sen. Davis, Preston B. Plumb [Kan.], Henry W. Blair [N. H.], Gideon C. Moody [S. Dak.], George G. Vest [Mo.], John R. McPherson [N. J.], James H. Berry [Ark.], Gen. Joseph R. Hawley [Conn.], Henry M. Teller [Col.]; Bill is Passed.

N April 29, 1830, Robert Y. Hayne [S. C.] delivered in the Senate a lucid narrative of the pension acts of the Government from the time of the Revolution to date, a forcible presentation of the principles which should govern such legislation, and a shrewd interpretation of a "general service pension bill" which was then before Congress, applying virtually to all who were in any way connected with military service during the Revolutionary War. The purpose of this bill, the distinguished Senator claimed, was to justify the continuance of the exorbitant taxes of the "American system" by opening up new means of extravagant expenditure of the revenue accruing therefrom, and he charged that the manufacturers and politicians of the North had devised the measure for their selfish interest.

Although no serious attempt was made by the advocates of the bill to refute the argument of Senator Hayne, the bill was passed by the votes of the National Republicans and a number of Democrats who had regard to the "old soldier vote" in their constituencies.