in our democracy suffer tragic casualty. They not only increase suspicions of other nations but increase our fear of ourselves.

The Commission report admits grievous dangers to the morals of the men but makes no provision to meet these dangers. To subject youth to situations that increase their dangers and decrease their democratic supports is one of our chief concerns. When youth are old enough to be submitted to military living they are mature enough to be entrusted with democratic opportunities. Maturity is not achieved by authoritarian controls but by democratic responsibilities.

Universal military training will be an economic liability. It will not supply trained men for crisis without repetition of training. To add another $4 billion in 1 year and continuing billions for succeeding years is not an assuring prospect. Already our economic and personal lives are strained to the breaking point by the disproportionate expenditures for defense. The spiral must be checked before we lose faith in our leaders. We are not happy to see our industry and our cities becoming dependent on the Pentagon for their life line.

The adoption of universal military training at this time would be convincing to all nations, as indeed it would be to our own citizens, that we have given up constructive measures and believe that war is our expectation and plan. It would make our disarmament proposals seem insincere, and confirms the fears of the neutral world over our militaristic trends. It would help support the Russian propaganda that we plan a war. Every time we give evidence to Russia that her accusations are true we have weakened our democracy in the eyes of the world.

With these deep concerns on this crucial issue we have witnessed with alarm the slanting of the news toward universal military training. Playing up the people and organizations for it, ignoring those against it is not democracy. To find our taxes used to propagandize one side of this issue is hard to accept. We urge an investigation of how and why this situation exists.

There are those who charge as idealistic people who dare to believe democracy has another alternative to our present commitments. It is not so much a characterization of idealistic or realistic as what we are idealistic or realistic about. The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom believes in being realists for the ideal of democracy as against totalitarianism, for education as against totalitarianism, world disarmament versus national militarism. We believe that the defeat of universal military training would once again give us hope that these ideals might be real.

We hope the Armed Services Committee keep in mind that first and foremost they are representatives of the American people and only secondarily members of the Armed Services Committee.

INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF YOUTH

Chairman RUSSELL. Mrs. Johnson, I notice that in your statement. you say:

It is the inalienable right of every youth to decide his own vocation, his own education, and where these are to be.

From that I take it that you are opposed to the Selective Service System, which would certainly interfere more than the UMT system proposed, with that right.

Mrs. JOHNSON. As I understand the Selective Service System, that is temporary. However, I am sure that our organization would stand opposed to it, as a rule of our people.

Chairman RUSSELL. Well, if it is an inalienable right, it would be violated as much or more by selective service than by UMT. Mrs. JOHNSON. And I would be opposed to it.

Chairman RUSSELL. You do not think, then, that there is any inalienable responsibility of men to bear arms to defend their country? Mrs. JOHNSON. I believe there are millions of ways for men to defend their country and this concept that every man must bear military arms to defend his country is not a democratic process. We should be able to decide how we are to defend our country.

Chairman RUSSELL. Well, Mrs. Johnson, we find that twice in times of great danger it was necessary for us to apply compulsion to secure men for the armed services.

Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, I said, under times of emergency our Nation and other democracies have been willing to go along with the temporary removal of the democratic freedom, for emergencies; but as a permanent policy, we do not believe it is healthy for good citizenship. Chairman RUSSELL. Do you not think we are in a period of emergency today?

Mrs. JOHNSON. I think we are in a period of emergency, yes, but I do not think of this military training as applying to the present emergency, that is something that is to go on a peacetime basis

Chairman RUSSELL. You understand, I am just trying to get at your philosophy, I am not being critical of you.

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes.

Chairman RUSSELL. But if there is an inalienable right, it would seem to me if any young man can decide for himself, it would absolutely nullify any responsibility to bear arms for his country in times of national peril.

Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, I think that is up to his conscience, if he cannot bear arms according to his conscience

Chairman RUSSELL. No; I am not talking about conscientious objectors. They are provided for under the law. I am talking about this matter of "inalienable right," which would not have to be a matter of conscience.

Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, if he decides to do it, then it must be his desire. He must choose to or not to and unless he has a desire to do it, he would not do it.

Chairman RUSSELL. But if there is a sufficient number of them who have the desire not to, then it would extinguish the inalienable right of all of us and the whole country would fall back to the Indians. Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, I think that the percentage that would refuse is so minor that I would not think there should not be concern.

very much

Chairman RUSSELL. You understand, I am not talking about those who refused on conscientious grounds. That has not been a considerable number. And yet, we have had to use the compulsion of legislative machinery and legal means to induct millions of men into the armed services in order to have a sufficient number to defend this country, and so it seems to me that if it is an "inalienable right," then

Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, sir, I think he has an inalienable right not to be inducted if he does not believe in it. Now, if he believes in it, he should go, certainly.

REDUCTION OF STANDING ARMIES

Chairman RUSSELL. You also state in your statement, Mrs. Johnson that:

The adoption of universal military training at this time would be convincing to all nations, as indeed it would be to our own citizens, that we have given up constructive measures and believe that war is our expectation and plan.

A great many of us have looked with favor on this proposal, in the hope that we could reduce this large standing Military Establishment that we have at the present time, composed of around 3,500,000

men.

It seems to me that if we retained the standing Military Establishment of men that are in arms 12 months in the year, 365 days-366 this year-that that would lend more of an appearance of an intention to attack than if we had a comparatively small standing army but a large number of reservists that had been trained and who are going about their daily vocations in our civilian economy. I thought that would create an entirely different opinion, contrary to yours.

Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, I think we both have a right to our opinions. Chairman RUSSELL. I understand that, and I gave you a right to express yours here. But, I had wondered if you had considered the effect it might have on world opinion if we were to say, "Now, we have sufficient civilian reservists who have been trained so that we can reduce our standing Regular Military Establishment by half a million."

Do you not think that would indicate to them that we were not preparing to attack?

Mrs. JOHNSON. No, I do not think it would be very convincing, if such a permanent policy were enforced all the time. I think it would be pretty clear evidence that we were expecting war, especially when it has never been a policy of this Government at all, and to do it now, at this time of crisis I think would be pretty convincing that we were expecting war-in our opinion as an organization.

Chairman RUSSELL. Thank you, Mrs. Johnson. Senator Saltonstall?

Senator SALTONSTALL. I would like to call your attention to the first sentence of your statement, where you say:

OPPOSITION TO CONCEPT OF UMT

We have come today to express the hope that Congress will not at this time nor at any future time vote universal military training into our laws.

As I understand it, it is in our law today. The only question before this committee at the present time is whether or not to take this method of putting it into effect as Mr. Wadsworth and his group have prepared or to take some other method. The law is on our books at the present time.

Mrs. JOHNSON. Oh, I didn't understand it that way at all. I thought that this Commission was to report that plan and that it was to be discussed and if it was not satisfactory, then universal

military training would not be effective; I understood we had to have a plan that would be acceptable before it would go into effect.

Senator SALTONSTALL. That is correct, but the fact is that the Congress has already voted that there should be the concept of universal military training.

Mrs. JOHNSON. If we found the right plan.

Of course, many of us feel that there can be no right plan for universal military training because the concept is wrong and to find the right logic for the wrong thing is not what we are after. We are trying to find the right logic for the right things in our democracy. Senator SALTONSTALL. In other words, you feel there is no plan that can be acceptable for universal military training?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Not for universal military training. I believe it is not a democratic process.

Chairman RUSSELL. Thank you, Mrs. Johnson, for your statement. The next organization to present its views before the committee is the National Temperance League, represented by Dr. Zeigler.

STATEMENT OF EARL F. ZEIGLER, NATIONAL TEMPERANCE LEAGUE, INC.

Mr. ZEIGLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the privilege of introducing Maj. Clayton M. Wallace, who is executive director of the National Temperance League.

Chairman RUSSELL. He may sit with you for your presentation. We are glad to have him accompany you.

Mr. ZEIGLER. Thank you.

My name is Earl F. Zeigler. I live at 6831 Anderson Street Philadelphia, Pa. I am a member of the board of directors of the National Temperance League, and president of the Pennsylvania Temperance League, one of the 40 State affiliated units of the National Temperance League. These organiaztions are interchurch temperance agencies dealing with the alcohol problem in their several areas. I am an editor on the board of Christian education of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America.

NO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR TRAINEES

At a meeting of the board of directors of the National Temperance League, held in Des Moines, Iowa, November 20, 21, 1950, resolutions were adopted, including the following:

In the event that Congress should enact a universal military training law to require the military training of all boys reaching their eighteenth birthday, we urge that the same prohibition against the sale of beer to trainees be imposed as was imposed against the sales of spiritous and vinous liquors. Beer is in fact intoxicating and should be recognized as such, and be subject to the same restrictions as other alcoholic beverages.

Since the constitution of the league confines it to action upon the liquor question, it is not the province of the organization to take any position upon the wisdom of UMT as a national policy. The league is greatly concerned that if a UMA program is adopted it should contain at least equivalent provisions on alcoholic beverages to those of the President's Advisory Commission on UMT, appointed in 1946. Its membership was composed of distinguished citizens whose specific

duty was to study the problem of the moral welfare of trainees in case UMT were adopted. The nine members of the President's Advisory Commission were Joseph E. Davies, Daniel A. Poling, Edmund A. Walsh, Harold W. Dodds, Anna M. Rosenberg, Charles E. Wilson, and Truman K. Gibson, Jr., Samuel I. Roseman, Karl T. Compton, chairman. Mrs. Anna M. Rosenberg is now Assistant Secretary of Defense, and Dr. Compton is now a member of the National Security Training Commission.

On May 29, 1947, the President's Advisory Commission submitted its report, section P 73, expressing the Commission's recommendations as follows:

(7) (a) Limitation of the opportunities for the purchase by trainees of any alcoholic beverages, including beer, through prohibiting the sale thereof to them on any military, naval, or any other camp reservation, or in any post exchange, ships's store, or canteen, (b) declaring off-limits to trainees all taverns, taprooms, and similar facilities whose principal business is selling alcoholic beverages, (c) soliciting the assistance of local communities in this program, and (d) making it a Federal crime knowingly to sell such beverages to any person in training.

The recommendations of the National Security Training Commission as indicated on page 44 of that Commission's first report to Congress, dated October 29, 1951, are in part as follows:

Additionally, we believe that no 3.2 beer should be sold in a UMT camp or training area. We would expect the PX's, ship stores, and trainee clubs within the UMT area to provide adequate soft drinks, fruit juices, ice cream, and a wholesome atmosphere.

As regards the use of intoxicating drinks by trainees off the post, we believe that all taverns and bars within a reasonable distance of the UMT camps should be off-limits for trainees and that a substantial penalty should attach to the keeper of such a place, wherever located, if he knowingly permits a trainee to enter and purchase an intoxicating drink.

I wish to insert the remark, Mr. Chairman, that these are not the quotations of the National Temperance League, but of two commissions that have been appointed with great powers to advise on this

matter.

Continuing with my testimony, inasmuch as the President's Advisory Commission in 1947 has recommended the elimination of 3.2 beer from trainee camps, and the National Security Training Commission has expressed their belief that "no 3.2 beer should be sold in a UMT camp or training area" we strongly urge that positive legislation be enacted instead of leaving it in the form of regulations which can be readily changed by the Department of Defense.

ALCOHOL RESTRICTION SHOULD BE WRITTEN INTO BILL

A careful study of S. 2441 shows that it contains no section which urges positive legislation to carry out effectively the recommendations of the National Security and Training Commission contained in its report of October 29, 1951.

We have received information from your committee that H. R. 5904, as revised by the House Armed Services Committee, is to be amended as follows:

The National Security Training Commission shall make such regulations as it deems to be appropriate governing the sale, consumption, possession of, or traffic in beer, wine, or any other beverage containing alcohol to or by members of the National Security Training Corps at or near any camp, station, post, or