Washington’s Delegation Divided Over New Federal Military Expansion
As Congress approves a billion-dollar, five-year military preparedness program, Washington State representatives split their votes amid concerns over regional equity and industrial policy.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Congress on Saturday completed its part in the enactment of the first of the administration preparedness measures, the army reorganization bill, and sent the measure to President Wilson. The house approved the conference report, which had already been accepted by the senate, with only 25 dissenting votes. The bill provides for a regular army with a peace strength of over 200,000 men and a federalized national guard of over 400,000. Representatives Hadley, Humphrey, and Johnson of Washington voted against the report, primarily because they desired a larger regular army and opposed the government-owned nitrate factory proposal, which they argued would funnel millions of public dollars into southern water power plants. Representatives Dill and La Follette voted to accept the report.
“They did so primarily because, they said, they desired to send it back to conference in hope of getting provisions for a larger regular army.”
The 1916 debate over military spending and the government’s role in industrial infrastructure mirrors modern anxieties about how federal investment (like defense contracts or clean-energy subsidies) is distributed across state lines. The skepticism expressed by Washington representatives toward a 'southern-focused' nitrate plant highlights the perennial struggle of the Pacific Northwest to ensure federal funds benefit local industry.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.