OUR STUNTED NAVY

It is perhaps natural that the national exhaustion and war-weariness which have followed upon the heels of the Great War should make this country blind to the need for efficient land and sea force. But even if it is natural, it is not likewise sensible. The lesson which the war taught--that unpreparedness is infinitely costly both in lives and gold--should not be relegated to the dust of time. Soft-headed pacifists are as harmful in peace as in war. To reawaken the slumbering interest in the value and the need of an efficient navy, this day, the birthday of Theodore Roosevelt, has again been set apart as Navy Day. In Boston and Brooklyn and other Navy Yard cities, the yards are today open to the public for inspection and instruction.

Needless to say there are good arguments for disarmament. A competition in armies and fleets is ruinous to a country's prosperity; it undermines good relations; and large fighting forces are at least a partial spur to attack. Recognizing these facts the Disarmament Council met in 1921 and established a valuable new regime But to argue that this country should not keep up to its quota or should disarm completely as an angelic example to the rest of the world is utter nonsense. For disarmament does not preclude war, and until the seed of war is completely removed, no nation will be willing to scrap all of its arms.

Meanwhile the United States is allowing its forces to degenerate into merely nominal fighting units. General Pershing's warnings have gone unheeded before a penurious or misguided Congress. And in the Navy, which is perhaps even more important for all emergencies, chasers and destroyers are allowed to disintegrate at their piers through lack of funds and personnel, and both the aeroplane and submarine service are undersize. Perhaps the national lethargy is temporary; it is to be hoped that it is brief, for to bring the navy up to its allowed quota--beyond a doubt a necessity--will soon involve enormous expense.