tional Fraternal Council of Churches, U. S. A., Inc., have examined Public Law 51 and the first report to the Congress by the National Security Training Commission. We have examined and do examine the documents with great interest; at the same time we are aware of the circumstances, condition, and organization of the world today. Upon the surface, the present world situation does seem to suggest that to be up to date a country must have universal military training. The large majority of the members of the Fraternal Council of Churches believe, however, the UMT preparedness will be an incentive to war, that a large group of men trained to fight will go to war. The Fraternal Council of Churches fears UMT will make bullies, who will say "Come on, I am ready to fight." All of the large groups who have tried it failed.

The National Fraternal Council of Churches has previously gone on record as opposed to UMT. The council, in the interest of its 7 million members, reaffirms its opposition to UMT and the proposals under consideration for several reasons:

1. First, the term "universal military training" is psychologically dangerous. This program, if approved, will cause nations of the world to impute to us unrighteous motives. A pointed finger is more deadly than a cannon. Selective service cannot be termed a move for aggression.

2. Second, the foundation of enduring national strength is not UMT but God. Many other countries of the world with great resources were settled and inhabited long before our country, but they have not made the progress of the United States. The builders of these countries settled in search of gold, while the Pilgrim Fathers settled in search of God. How can we fail with such a prop as this? May I say we injected that particular item for the simple reason that we observe that we do count our legionnaires in the field and we count our American Legionnaires.

But we want to emphasize the point and while we are thinking in terms of Legionnaires that we should not forget the spiritual Legionnaires.

A young man out in the hills of Palestine did that on one occasion and the prophet prayed that his eyes might be opened, and he saw that the valley was filled with spiritual Legionnaires so that they who are for us are far more than those who are against us.

Let us not forget the spiritual legionnaires.

Thirdly, it is not the proper alternative. If we activate this program, we resort to the common mistake of mankind. We set up the alternatives of appeasement and UMT and make a choice. Both of these are wrong. Further, both are opposed to Jesus and democracy. What the world needs is not a program to kill men, but a program to elevate their ideals and spirits. UMT may subdue a man's body, but not the thing in which he believes. We want a program that will change thoughts. We have machinery already set up to do the job; let us implement that. We are more than conquerers through Him who loved us. We cannot therefore, recommend UMT to employ the weapons of force to do battle with the powers of evil. We need to take Christ seriously in our perplexities.

Where I refer to machinery already set up, I refer to directives and organizations of the United Nations and other programs with which our Fraternal Council of Churches and our National Council of

Churches are working. It seems to be moving along rather successfully. We made great progress in the countries of the world through our Government machinery, and it is working with our world-wide church organizations.

We have a feeling that if our Congress would implement that, universal military training would not be necessary.

4. Demoralizing influences accompany training camps. Among those influences are strong drink, gambling, and loose sex practices. The legislated safeguards will not offset the dangers inherent.

We do not mean they might not, to some extent, lessen the influences of these evils, but we mean that you cannot legislate a man wholly out of the influence or the impact of the influences they might have upon an individual.

So we want to keep this in mind when we think about activating this legislation into law.

5. And here we refer particularly to this bill-integration is not sufficiently spelled out to insure maximum results for minimum cost and losses in all areas of life, in the event that Public Law 51 is activated.

We respectfully request that this committee urge that integration be specifically provided, if the law is activated.

We had in mind at that point-as I studied the law as proposed-I wasn't clear as to whether a man who lived in Texas would be shipped all the way across the country to New York thereby involving certain expenditures, and at the same time I was not quite clear as I read the law, whether or not regional integration is provided for wholly, sectional integration provided for wholly, and the racial integration provided for wholly.

It is our opinion, as we studied the law, that if we can enact a law to force a young man in Texas to go into the Army, or universal military training at all, we can force him to go into any camp we assign him to. We want to inject it in our statement that we are arguing for that.

6. UMT would persistently and systematically interrupt great masses of our young people annually at an important formative period in their lives. Under such circumstances, we feel that they will not be prepared to render the highest service to society. They will be deprived of normal family social influences which have helped to make America what it is.

7. UMT is contrary to our efforts to and the system of competitive

armaments.

I mean by our efforts, the efforts of the United States of America. 8. Our Nation can be taught more constructively and economically apart from, and without UMT.

9. Public Law 51 and the proposals by the National Security Training Commission do not fully and sufficiently provide against brutal treatment of our soldiers. The code of a working legislation should make provision for this.

We do not merely refer to the mistreatment of Negroes but some of our white soldiers and some of our soldiers of Chinese blood have been mistreated so that we hope this committee will do its best in the event we are hoping that the law is not activated, but in the event it is, we hope that this committee will do its best to provide some amendment to the code or some law that will see to it that our soldiers,

white or black or brown, whatever they may be, see to it that they have fair treatment.

Finally, we urge the intelligent use of our heritage to explore for better possibilities in human relations. Let us be aware of the spirit of God as well as the signs of the times. While we are searching for techniques to bring a favorable end to our crisis, let us try the method of Jesus-"And being in agony, He prayed the more earnestly." Chairman RUSSELL. We are glad to have had your statement, Reverend Fowler.

Reverend FowWLER. Thank you, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. The next witness represents the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, Rev. Jay Warren Kaufman.

STATEMENT OF REV. JAY WARREN KAUFMAN

Reverend KAUFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have with me Rev. Clifford Earl, director of the division of social education in action, of the Presbyterian Church.

I would like to introduce for the record, if I may, the 2-page mimeographed sheet. I will refer to certain portions of that sheet. Senator HUNT. It will be accepted and made a part of the record. Do you wish it preceding or following your statement?

Reverend KAUFMAN. Following the statement, sir.

Mr. Chairman, I represent the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America which is one of the several denominations holding the presbyterian form of government. It does not represent all of the Presbyterian Churches of the country.

Our denomination is made up of about 23 million people, about 8,500 churches. The statement I am to make today represents the expression at one particular time at a yearly meeting of 900 elected representatives of the people. Half of those representatives are ministers and half are laymen.

Each year since 1946-and here I refer to the second sheet of the mimeographed paper-with the exception of 1950, the yearly meeting of the church has expressed itself in opposition to UMT. Now I make this statement to indicate we do not claim that we represent-that this position represents-all the Presbyterian people of our denomination. It represents the combined wisdom of 900 representatives of the people meeting at a particular time.

QUALIFICATION AS A WITNESS

Now, a word about myself that may help in understanding this testimony. The Presbyterian Church, through the Division of Social Education and action has asked me to present this statement because of my own personal opposition to UMT, and because of my familiarity with and understanding of the role of the civilian soldier, having been myself a trainee in CMTC, a student in ROTC, a private in the Pennsylvania National Guard and an Infantry Reserve officer for 20 years. During that 20-year period in the Infantry I served for 5 years' extended duty during the last war and my chief assignments were as company commander and battalion commander and personnel staff officer as assistant G-1 of the China-Burma theater and later, as an assignment in the Military Personnel Division of the Armed Service Forces in the Pentagon during the demobilization period.

Another reason for my selection to present the church's position is my experience since the war as the pastor of a church in suburban Philadelphia in which three-fourths of the men are veterans of World War II. I am at present a lieutenant colonel of the Infantry in the Army Reserves and serving in a general staff capacity.

IS QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE OF UMT CLOSED?

Before proceeding to the statement, I would like to say that we are assuming that even though the Congress has established the National Security Training Corps, we cannot understand by that that the question is closed. We are speaking today in opposition to the principle of UMT because we believe it to be still open.

I refer to the Congressional Record, an answer to the question before the House, whether or not the law which was under consideration, Public Law No. 51, would mean that the House would have no further opportunity to examine the whole question of having UMT.

Chairman Carl Vinson of the House Armed Services Committee said on the House floor on June 7, and I quote:

The most significant is the agreement with respect to the requirement that Congress must take another look at universal military training before it can be put into operation. I stated to the House originally that I felt that Congress should have another opportunity to examine this feature in greater detail and I am happy to say that the conference report requires such a procedure.

We are assuming on the strength of that that UMT is not a settled matter and we are opposing it in principle. Now may I read from the first page of my mimeographed sheet this statement of the church. It is the beginning of the second paragraph.

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America has consistently opposed universal military training and peacetime conscription, such as the proposed legislation seeks to implement. The position was last declared by the general assembly on May 30, 1951:

OPPOSITION TO UMT AS PERMANENT PEACETIME POLICY

While acknowledging the necessity in this day for adequate military preparations consistent with our responusibilities under the United Nations, we would remind the church of our repeated opposition to permanent conscription, and commend a constant scrutiny of our military development program by competent civilians.

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America has not been wanting in support of the Nation in time of war-even to supporting measures of conscription in time of war. But it has stated and restated its firm opposition to programs such as the Commission proposes for establishing universal military training as a settled policy of the Nation in time of peace. The Presbyterian Church has stood against the threat of foreign foes. It has even more freely seen the threat to our freedom in costly peacetime conscription and militarism.

Mr. Chairman, may I summarize this very briefly. The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America is opposed to UMT for two reasons: First, because it is a plan for permanent conscription as opposed to emergency time conscription; second, because its permanence prevents a constant scrutiny of our military development

program by competent civilians. I would like to comment briefly on these two points.

SUPPORTS CONSCRIPTION IN EMERGENCY

The Presbyterian Church, United States of America, supports conscription in time of emergency as a necessary evil. I would like to make it very clear that my church is not a pacifist church, although there are many pacifists in our church, and we respect the right of conscience. But I repeat, the church is not a pacifist church.

Our members expect to bear arms in defense of this Nation when the threat of aggression exists. We are willing to give up many of our cherished freedoms and become a part of the military system in order to bring the threat of war, or war itself to a satisfactory conclusion.

Now as we understand UMT it is designed to provide rapid mobilization of partially trained reserves at the outbreak of a national emergency, following a period of relative calm when our military guard would be down. As such, it is a peacetime measure.

Now from a military viewpoint UMT may be a splendid idea but my church believes it would be most harmful to the general welfare of the Nation to conscript every able-bodied boy of 18 for military training and Reserve service for the chief reason that his services might be needed in time of emergency.

May I repeat: It may be a good plan from a military viewpoint, but we believe it is a bad plan when we consider the welfare of the whole Nation.

CIVILIAN CONTROL OF THE MILITARY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Now my second point has to do with civilian control of the military development program. My church believes that it is not only the right, but the responsibility of Congress to determine when and where and for what period of time young men shall be conscripted for Federal service. We believe that the people of the Nation are given adequate and proper representation only when this is done.

A permanent plan of conscription in effect and assuming legislation under the Reserve forces bill, would turn the entire matter over to the Military Establishment so that if the President believes an emergency to exist at any time during a time of peace, if the President belives a period of emergency exists, Reserve troops may be called to active status without the consent of Congress.

Although such action would appear to be desirable from the military standpoint, we believe that the avowed necessity for such control on the part of the military would indicate a basic lack of confidence in the ability of Congress to respond quickly enough to meet a period of national emergency.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, we believe that Congress should keep complete control of any program for calling out the Reserves. Sir, that concludes my testimony.

Chairman RUSSELL. Reverend Kaufman, we are glad to have you here. The Presbyterians somewhat disarmed us by sending in an infantry captain with war experience to discuss this rpogram. We are glad to have had your views on the great organization that you represent.