es or the advantages which the annexation of
Holland might involve, as regards the political balance of power in
Europe, and the vast Asiatic colonies of the Dutch--Sumatra, Java, New
Guinea, etc.--are a consideration outside the present scope of
American policy; but the transaction would involve one little incident
as to which, unlike southern Brazil, a decided opinion may be
expressed, and that incident would be the transference of the island
of Curacao, in the West Indies, to Germany. If Curacao and its
political tenure do not fall within the purview of the Monroe
doctrine, the Monroe doctrine has no existence; for the island, though
small, has a wellnigh impregnable harbor, and lies close beside the
routes to the Central American Isthmus, which is to us what Egypt and
Suez are to England. But what objection can we urge, or what can we
do, with a navy "for defence only," in the military sense of the word
"defence"?

The way out of this confusion of thought, the logical method of
reconciling the political principle of non-aggression with a naval
power capable of taking the offensive, if necessary, is to recognize,
and to say, that defence means not merely defence of our territory,
but defence of our just national interests, whatever they be and
wherever they are. For example, the exclusion of direct European
political control from the Isthmus of Panama is as really a matter of
national defence as is the protection of New York Harbor. Take this as
the political meaning of the phrase "a navy for defence only," and
naval men, I think, must admit that it is no longer inapplicable as a
military phrase, but expresses adequately the naval needs of the
nation. But no military student can consider efficient a force so
limited, in quantity or in quality, that it must await attack before
it can act.

Now admitting this view as to the scope of the word "defence," what is
the best method of defending your interests when you know that
another intends to attack them? Is it to busy yourself with
precautions here, and precautions there, in every direction, to head
him off when he comes? Or is it to take the simpler means of so
preparing that you have the power to hurt him, and to make him afraid
that, if he moves, he will be the worse hurt of the two? In life
generally a man who means mischief is kept in check best by fear of
being hurt; if he has no more to dread than failure to do harm, no
reason to apprehend receiving harm, he w