Scanned text:
THE BLUE AND GOLD, '17
(Wilfrid Hocking's oration: winner of second honors in the Copper Country Sub-District contest.)
PLEA FOR ADEQUATE NATIONAL DEFENSE.
It is daily becoming more apparent that the present world-wide conflict is operating to profoundly modify the conceptions of the American people regarding the subject of national defense. Among the considerations so operating are the friction and arising from our insistence upon the rights due to neutrals. So much a matter of life and death do the war policies of the belligerents seem to them that opposition arising from any source whatever is met with bitter resentment. In evidence of this fact we need only refer to the comment and cartoons of foreign newspapers. We trust that in time this bitterness will disappear. The conviction, however, is slowly gaining ground that, should the policies of the United States in the future conflict with what these nations may deem their vital interests, they might not be relied upon to the same extent as heretofore to meet the situation in a spirit of accommodation or mutual concession.
The policy that at present seems most likely to involve us in foreign complications is the Monroe Doctrine. ,This policy, however, is time honored, cherished, and peculiarly American; and tradition and interest alike require that we continue to affirm it. From the moment of its ennunciation, indeed, we have consistently so done, and it has, in turn, been generally respected by European powers. Now, however. times are changed. This will not be the same kind of a world in the future that it has been in the past. Might is more than ever likely to take precedence over right, and the probability that the Monroe Doctrine will much longer remained unchallenged is materially lessened. in this connection it is interesting to note that foreign writers agree that our Monroe Doctrine may be regarded as having the greatest possibilities for war of any policy of a modern nation. For this reason some writers counsel its abandonment, but, however strong a case they can make theoretically, it must be remembered that the Monroe Doctrine is a condition, a thread in the fabric of our national life rather than a theory, and that the American people will never willingly consent to its abandonment. Such being thecase, the question "Are we ready?" must be answered.
The navy, our first line of defense, his been retrograding rather than advancing in rank, thus jeopardizing that control of the sea essential to preserve our coasts from bombardment or invasion by a possible enemy. Retrogression in naval strength would imperil our hold on our important outlying possessions such as Alaska, the Philippines, and the Panama Canal Zone. To see even the least of these isolated and appropriated by a foreign country, without the power of offering effectual resistence, would be a humiliation, which, we trust, the American people may never be called upon to witness.
Much speculation is being indulged in at present concerning a possible foreign invasion of America. While in military circles the danger is recognized and appreciated, it is also generally agreed that such an operation must be in the nature of an attempt to seize or destroy our large cities, railway terminals, and basic industries, in order to force us to submission before we could organize our latent resources. Whether such an invasion is feasible or not, this thing is certain, that the best way to invite it is by maintaining an attitude of indifference toward the vital issue of national defense. Let us hope that we shall not soon be subjected to such a test, in view of the fact that at present we are not prepared even to deal effectually with weak and distracted Mexico should intervention become imperative.
There are those who declare that this is not a fair estimate of our military strength ; that our enormous population constitutes an undeveloped military resource capable of arising in an emergency and repelling an invasion. They seem to agree with those who feel that if the President called for a million men at sunrise he would have them at sunset. Richard Henry Lee, however, fitly characterized such a policy when he said, "A government is the murderer of its citizens which sends them to the field uninformed and untaught where they arc to meet men of the same age and strength mechanized by education and discipline, for battle."
The apprehension that if our military forces be increased we shall become a nation burdened with the old world curse of militarism is utterly without foundation. if by militarism is meant compulsory military service, it is sufficient