was disarmament, to make ourselves equal with others. All disarmament without a supervising superior power will have the same effect.

Looking at it now, from a purely American standpoint, disarmament for us would mean the abandonment of our financial superiority over other nations of the earth. We have it. Are we willing to abandon it, to put ourselves on a level with others? That would be asinine kindness.

Armament and military training are inseparable. In every State, the duty of preserving the country resides in the sovereign, which, in our republic, is the citizen, the people. The responsibility The responsibility for defending and preserving the country and its institutions, therefore, rests in the citizen. Disarm, and it is a sign to the citizen that he has no such responsibility. It will wipe out any feeling that there is any need for military training, and it will cease everywhere as it had practically ceased everywhere before '98. This would result, of course, in the citizen unpreparedness to help preserve his country in the most critical time, war. It would result in the wiping out of schools, military schools, where alone discipline, the great national need, is now being somewhat attended to.

In the scuffle of the war the mask of pacificism was dashed off, and we recognized and cursed pacificism as our worst and most insidious enemy. The proposition of disarmament is in effect a proposal to us to return to pacificism. Do you want to welcome it back?

During the war, in consequence of our long preceding disarmament and neglect of military training, we were brought under a British protectorate. It was nothing else; you know it. The British with their great armed forces stood

between us and the enemy while we were trying to get ready to get into the fight. However kind and considerate, that was a protectorate. Do we want it back? Disarmament will bring it, or some other like it, back over us.

Disarmament alone, or lack of armament alone, does not obviate war. Unarmed or ill-armed peoples are continually at war. Look at our Indians of this country before we brought arms among them! Unarmament on both sides didn't stop war between North and South. The unarmed or ill-armed peoples of some of the South American and Central American republics are in continual revolution. Our inferior tribes of the Philippines, if they cannot get knives and spears, are at it with sticks and stones. They are at it so steadily they can live only on treetops in some places and in mud forts in others; and the less arms they have the more continuous seems to be the warfare.

The real reasons for our desiring disarmament is the hope of: (1) avoiding the cost of the arms, (2) avoiding the trouble of training.

Disarmament has never in the past avoided either. It has delayed but not avoided. It has repeatedly in our history put off the cost of arms and the training until we were actually in war, and then had to take all the trouble of training and had to pay all the cost with heavy interest on the delay. There are statistics and comparisons with other nations that prove it. Most of us have seen them and know it. 'Our real insistence upon disarmament is not that we are not convinced of this, but that we, in our generation, hope somehow to put both the paying and the training off on somebody else, who have always heretofore been our sons. A proposi