Crippling The Navy.

New York Times 100 years ago today, July 26, 1912:
    It is a shameful state of affairs when politicians elected to represent the people in the House of Representatives persist in making an appropriation for battleships contingent upon the enactment of legislation favoring their constituencies. We cannot believe that there is a constituency in the United States in which a majority of the voters would sustain such action by their representatives. A third caucus of the House has voted against the ships. The conferrees of both houses must take the matter up again, but the chance of getting both the battleships required this year is now very poor. A compromise on only one ship is the best we can hope for. Yet throughout the country there is no expression of opposition to upbuilding the navy, and the opposition in Congress is admitted to be purely political, and due largely to the fact that there has been no appropriation for public buildings.
    This is a curious way to show spite. The battleships are for no particular State, as the Navy is for the protection of the whole country. Mr. Sulzer, Mr. Underwood, and others prominent in the majority are willing  to accept the half loaf of one battleship, which is a pity. No American familiar with the needs of our navy, and observant of the great naval growth of the European Powers, should be willing to compromise even for policy's sake. We ought to be building three or four modern warships every year.