They are already doing as much as-more than some of us think they should, and if we gave them occasion, they may do more. However, if full rapport can be maintained with Russia, who also seems to be well fixed, then there will be no sense in alienating Russia, it would be highly dangerous.

In my paper, which I hope you will read, I refer to the fact that even though Russia had announced plans to conscript 15- to 16-yearolds, there was no reason why we should add fuel to the flames.

Since then the statement has been made that Russia does not plan to conscript the 15- and 16-year-olds.

Now, of course, if that system fails, then we must have utmost preparation, but we sincerely hope that this will not be true.

So much for the first point.

The second point-the Liberal Party rejects those alleged benefits to the physical well-being along disciplinary lines and along moral lines. It does not believe after 1 year of military training is the best way to get either one of those two. We believe that the physical welfare can be better cared for other ways, and at less cost. We believe that the disciplinary effects, on the whole, would be bad rather than good.

If I had time, I would be very glad to discuss that, but that is a line I have given a good deal of thought to.

We believe that the moral effect on the young people at that age would be very doubtful. To get all the boys around 18 away from home, into Army camps, with week ends, nothing to do, nothing to interest them, nobody to look after them in any personal way, we feel would be very hazardous, and I would like to read some things that have just been published.

This is a study made by a certain group, the Bureau of Applied Social Science of Columbia University, and they wrote to 83 experts, supposed to be competent in the field of youth training, and asked their judgment, and I would like to read some of their replies on this particular point.

These are quotations:

"Bad effect on morals, wine, women, and song."

That is one.

"Necessarily low moral standards in particular as regards the other sex as a result of a year at camp at a very young and impressionable age."

Another is: "Fearful of consequences of complete male segregation for a full year in peacetime."

You see, there is nothing interesting about the proposed activity. Again: "The training would teach impressionable boys bad habits, moral, or intellectual."

As is always done in purely male society, the moral level cointues to drop unless it is controlled by special moral and intellectual leaders, such as they find in the colleges and monasteries.

And I may say that a sergeant does not have the necessary preparation or the capacity to render this moral or intellectual leadership. • These are statements made by those men writing in answers. Again may I reiterate: "Week-end leaves of absence after a week of repellant activity can be very bad, will be bad in many instances." That, I think, is a pretty good way of stating it, "week-end leaves after a week of repellant activity could be very bad."

"The roughening effect of barracks life-character would be impaired by demoralization and sex promiscuity would begin and cheating, to get by the regulations."

It seems to us of the Liberal Party that the proposed program is a very complete reversal of American traditions and is very doubtfulif it is unnecessary, and so it seems to the people of this country, even to a large proportion of them-it will prove highly repugnant to the boys themselves, to their parents and to the best thought that we can have, that we do have in this country on the subject-if it should turn out that we have to have it, well, then, we have to have it and will be behind it 100 percent, because the Liberal Party goes right along on the basis that we must do whatever is necessary, but until the need can be shown, we believe it were better not to.

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you very much, Doctor.

Mr. Andrews.

Mr. ANDREWS. Doctor, may I ask your age?

Dr. KILPATRICK. Seventy-three.

Mr. ANDREWS. And have you been a citizen of the United States all your life?

Dr. KILPATRICK. I have lived here in this country all of my life. Mr. ANDREWS. Did you serve in the Spanish-American War?

Dr. KILPATRICK. No; I was not old enough.

Mr. ANDREWs. Served in Warld War I?

Dr. KILPATRICK. I was too old for World War I-I was 45.
Mr. ANDREWS. I have no other questions.

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you, Doctor.

Dr. KILPATRICK. Thank you, sir.

Chairman WOODRUM. Mr. Mark Wiseman, commander of the Willard Straight Post of the American Legion, New York City.

STATEMENT OF MARK WISEMAN, COMMANDER, WILLARD STRAIGHT POST, AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. WISEMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as commander and official representative of the Willard Straight Post of the American Legion, I desire to thank the chairman and members of the committee for their courtesy in offering us this opportunity to present our views.

This post was founded in 1920 by the late Sidney Howard, playwright; Ernest Angell, now president of the Council for Democracy; Oswald Knauth, later president of the Associated Dry Goods Corp., and 12 other veterans, chiefly writers and professional men.

Among its present members, besides Messrs. Angell and Knauth, are Dr. Carl Binger, of the Cornell Medical School; Walter Binger, Manhattan commissioner of borough works; Prof. Philip Jessup, of Columbia University; Adolf Berle, recently Assistant Secretary of State and now Ambassador to Brazil; Charles Merz, editor of the New York Times; Jay Allen, war correspondent; Thomas R. Carskadon and J. Frederick Dewhurst, of the Twentieth Century Fund. Former members include John J. McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War; Ernest Gruening, Governor of Alaska; Walter Lippmann, newspaper correspondent and commentator; and the late Kenneth F. Simpson, Republican national committeeman from New York,

I cite these names to indicate the variety of interests and personalities which have contributed to the post's history. Its current membership of more than 70 constitutes a serious-minded and socially conscious group whose meetings are devoted largely to a consideration of public questions.

Discussion of postwar military defense, military training, was made the chief subject of our discussions last October. At that meeting a consensus was taken on compulsory military training. Many views were expressed, but their general tenor was in favor of this means of raising and maintaining an adequate postwar military establishment. A committee of nine was created to study the subject, and several other meetings were given to discussions of it. At one of these, several men of national prominence, including an official representative of the Army, a representative of Selective Service, and others, were invited to contribute facts and opinions. In April, a resolution was brought in by the committee which opposed compulsory training both on grounds of principle and on grounds of efficacy. The vote on this showed an overwhelming majority in favor of the committee's attitude. The only votes registered against it-that is, in favor of compulsory training-were those of members who had had no part in the earlier discussions.

This resolution was subsequently rewritten in the form of a statement which, with your permission, I shall presently read to you. The statement was then circulated to the entire membership and received with general if not unanimous favor. As commander, I have received only one protest from a member.

In accordance with the regulations of the Legion, the statement was sent to the National, State, and county Legion headquarters, with a letter indicating that it would be distributed to Members of the Congress and to the press, and asking for official comment.

From the national headquarters, I received a reply, signed by the director of the division of national defense, from which I quote the following excerpts:

It seems peculiar that Willard Straight Post would come out now with this statement, after the American Legion has endorsed universal military training for the past 25 years * *. In our democratic form of government the will of the majority must rule or we will have no democracy. The majority of the American Legion has spoken on universal military training. For you to distribute this statement to Congressmen would be much the same as if one of our soldiers, not agreeing with the rest of his comrades on the problem of attack, would stay in his foxhole and shoot from the rear. If he does not wish to go along, he should at least refrain from aiding the enemy. An action such as you propose would most certainly be an aid to the opponents of your comrades.

From the headquarters of the New York County commitee, I received a letter from which the following excerpts are quoted:

*

Although the ideas expressed in the pamphlet are those of a substantial majority of your post members, I feel that the Willard Straight Post should fall in line with the national organization who have advocated compulsory military training after the war **. Would it not be wise, be ore you take any definite stand, that you first protest the action of the national organization through proper channels and not by publicity? We of the New York County organization keep many matters of importance from the press and feel that if you proceed as to your intentions in bringing this matter before the public you might subject the Willard Straight Post for disciplinary action by the national organization.

I have presented these excerpts, not to bring opprobrium on the official organization of the Legion, but to indicate that serious diffi

culties are placed in the way of free expression of opinion by Legion posts on this highly controversial subject. The clear implication of these letters is that there are probably many other posts besides our own which share our views but have hesitated to express themselves publicly for fear of disciplinary action. Certainly it is true that the official attitude of the Legion does not represent the unanimous opinion of its members, and should not be so taken by this committee or by the Congress as a whole.

I hesitate to dispute the Legion's assertion that "in our democratic form of government the will of the majority must rule or we will have no democracy." But I prefer the view of our country's founders who provided for the freedom of minorities to express their opinions in speech or in print.

Therefore, we have had printed, and have distributed to all Members of the Congress, including your committee, and to the press, the statement which I shall now read.

America stands in urgent need of a program of national defense for the postwar period. As immediate and positive steps in that direction the Willard Straight Post, No. 842, New York, of the American Legion urges the following: 1. United and nonpartisan support of all Americans for the momentous steps now being taken to set up a world security organization. This organization, together with such international agencies and agreements as those dealing with relief, civil aviation, food and the like, offer the world's-and our own-ultimate best hope of peace and security. Success of such efforts is worth whatever purely national adjustments may be required to attain that goal.

2. Drawing up concrete specifications for a postwar military establishment, including Army, Navy, and Air Forces, large enough—

(a) To carry out any commitments we may undertake as part of a world security organization; and

(b) To provide adequate protection, both for our country itself and our outlying bases, until we have some conclusive evidence of the success or failure of the world organization. If that organization succeeds, we may look forward to the gradual reduction of national and international armaments; if it fails, we shall be chiefly dependent upon our own armed resources.

3. Adoption of a congressional bill or joint resolution creating a Presidential commission, with a civilian majority, and an Army, Navy, and Air Force minority, to consider the requirements of such a program of national defense and report within a year after its appointment. This commission should be bipartisan and should consider all relevant matters, including the possible desirability of combining the Army, Navy, and Air Forces in a department of national defense or other form of unified organization; the relative size and importance of the three services in view of our geographical and strategic position; compulsory military training and various other means of recruiting personnel for our whole establishment.

The three steps suggested above, the post believes, offer a sound and constructive approach to the rounded program that our country so vitally needs. Up to now, only one major item-compulsory military training-has been offered for general public consideration. In spite of what seems to us the grave defects of compulsory training, the Willard Straight Post preserves an open mind on the question if the total picture--including the nature of the world organization actually set up and the needed size of our postwar Navy, Air Forces, and Armyfinally indicates that our requirements can be met in no other way.

Meanwhile, on the basis of the best information and analysis now available to us, it is our considered judgment that compulsory training actually would hinder, rather than help, an adequate program of national defense.

Our first approach is military. Competent authorities have not yet offered the public specific figures on how large our postwar Military establishment should be. We can, however, with some confidence set forth our defense needs in terms of the following fundamentals:

(a) A Navy adequate to defend our country and outlying bases against any power or combination of powers; and to meet the commitments we have recently

undertaken with other countries of the Americas for joint defense of the Western Hemisphere.

(b) A large and mobile Air Force to join with the Navy as our forward line of defense.

(e) A readily expansible, thoroughly trained and equipped Army, of size to be determined but of far greater strength than that which we maintained between 1920 and 1940.

(d) An adequately staffed and financed research organization devoted to the study and development of war techniques and equipment.

(e) Pilot plants for the production of war material and constant revision of plans for the prompt conversion of our industry to a wartime basis.

(f) Adequate stock piles of strategic materials.

(g) The necessary intelligence service to keep us fully informed of developments elsewhere.

Authorities agree that we shall need these fundamentals, regardless of whether or not we have compulsory training.

Financial questions arise at once. The program of fundamentals is costly. With the return of peace there will inevitably come a time when the public will not tolerate unlimited expenses for military purposes. There will be increasing pressure to hold down or reduce appropriations. We feel that universal training carries the grave risk of giving this country a false sense of security, so that we might feel "safe" in cutting down the Navy, or the Air arm, in our research activities, or some other service really crucial to our defense. Likewise, military training might divert not only funds, but time, energy, and leadership from more vital channels.

Again looking at military matters, we find compulsory training may offer more shadow than substance. The proposals now before Congress call for universal military training, not actual military service. In the best possible circumstances, a training program that takes in about 1,000,000 young men a year would give us only an additional 1,000,000 trained men immediately available at the outbreak of a war. Personnel returned to civilian life get out of training very rapidly, just as athletic teams do. Those out only a few months would require some retraining, reequipping and regrouping. Those out a year or two, more so; those out 2 years or more a pretty thorough retraining; and those more than 5 years out probably would be little better than raw recruits.

It is a wasteful and inefficient system that would, over a period of, say, 25 years, train 25,000,000 men and then be able to use only about 3,000,000 in actual war without extensive additional training.

Meanwhile, industrial questions arise. It would take about a year and a half to get our industry converted and placed on a full war-production basis. It would take equally long to assemble the transport-ships and planes-to send and supply large bodies of men overseas. In that time, we could raise and equip armed forces-not with antiquated material and routine, peacetime training, but with the very latest combat equipment and training under the supreme stimulus of actual wartime conditions. As two World Wars have shown, it is always to our advantage to meet and defeat the aggressor overseas before he reaches our shores. To give us time to assemble and exert our force at a distance, we must rely on a large and efficient Navy and Air Force, regardless of whether we have compulsory military training.

Our whole American tradition is against conscription. In the light of our tradition, it seems probable that after memories of war recede in years of peacetime, young men called up for military training would react to it with boredom and chafing. We recall the dangerously low morale of men summoned for training in 1940, when we were not actually at war, even though France had fallen and our peril was increasing daily.

Undoubtedly military training would benefit some of the trainees. If, however, our aim is improved health, or education, or vocational training, such ends can be more effectively achieved by other means. Health measures, for example, should be aimed at the entire population and not given only to those already physically fit for military service.

We stress again our belief that America's central task is to build peace for our country by building peace for the world. We take a proper pride in this country's actual and moral leadership in the historic moves to set up a world organization. To take the unprecedented steps of establishing universal military training now could be interpreted by many as proclaiming in advance our belief that such efforts may fail. It would disrupt the normal lives and educational