Rev. Mr. BRUMBAUGH. Great Britain is one that doesn't have military training, and certainly has been one of the bulwarks of democracy and perhaps made a better demonstration of fighting power than imperialistic France.

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you, Mr. Brumbaugh.

Mr. Ensworth Reisner, representing the Citizens Committee of Buffalo, Erie County, and Western New York, is our next witness. Please proceed, Dr. Reisner.

STATEMENT OF ENSWORTH REISNER, REPRESENTING CITIZENS COMMITTEE OF BUFFALO, ERIE COUNTY, AND WESTERN NEW YORK ON PEACETIME CONSCRIPTION

Mr. REISNER. If you will pardon me, I still have the airplane in my ears, and it is almost impossible for me to hear other people, and sometimes I wonder if I can hear myself.

Chairman WOODRUM. Very well; we can hear you very distinctly. Go ahead.

Mr. REISNER. I have been authorized to speak for the Citizens Committee of Buffalo, Erie County, and Western New York on Peacetime Conscription, which has no it numerous individuals and representatives of western New York organizations, including the Buffalo and Erie County Council of Churches, the Roman Catholic diocese, the Jewish synagogue, the CIO, and the UAWA, service clubs, racial groups, YMCA and YWCA, and also the Methodist Federation of Social Service of Genesee Conference, and the authorization of Bishop Weldman, of the Methodist Church of the Syracuse area.

I am speaking on just one phase of this question, and that is the phase which involves the basic underlying philosophies involved in the traditional attitude of the United States toward the peacetime military forces as contrasted with the basic philosophies inherent within a military system based upon peacetime conscription.

I greatly appreciate the opportunity given to us to appear at this hearing, because I realize that many local communities were unable to do so.

The basic issue involved in peacetime military conscription for the United States is an issue between two philosophies of life-two types of culture, two faiths. The one believes that power, sheer physical power, is the final arbiter of all issues on earth. The other believes that reason, spirit, and truth are the ultimate arbiters of human affairs. The essence of every military system-Assyrian, Roman, German, or American-is to concentrate physical power with which to overwhelm any physical power which opposes it. This belief requires a hierarchy of command and a subordination of individual opinion for fear that any such crack or flaw in the unity of the system and military perfection would lessen its ability to apply power. Contrary to this belief, the American and English tradition, which we have inherited, has been exceptionally wary of such concentration of power. When it has seemed necessary it has been accepted with fear and trembling that it might assume uncontrollable proportions. It was this fear of power in uncontrollable proportions that caused our forefathers to divide government into a balance of legislative, judicial, and executive branches. It has been the fear of this philosophy of power which

caused them to concentrate as much as was humanly possible the full authority in distinctly civilian hands, so that the philosophy of power would not make toxic the blood of the nation. This rule has been relaxed only in grave emergencies such as war, and even then our forefathers insisted that the military system be subject to the distinctly civilian legislative body for its finances, and that civil and constitutional rights should not be abrogated.

Why did they do this? Because they feared concentration of power, which is the inherent essential of any military system. Opposed to the philosophy of power is the philosophy of truth and reason which our democratic and Christian traditions insist are the basis of realistic and practical good government. The power culture salutes the uniform, the state, the system. The reason culture salutes the proven ability and experience of the individual.

How does peacetime military conscription indelibly stamp a modern nation with a culture of power? Commander Sullivan, of Erie County American Legion, at a hearing at the Council of Churches Building in Buffalo, told us that he represented the official position of the American Legion, and that his position had the backing of the Army. In advocating before us peacetime conscription he said two things of significance: First, he pointed out that any peacetime-conscription program would necessitate, eventually if not immediately, a program in the schools whereby young men would be psychologically prepared for their period of military training. I asked him if this would mean a supervised educational program which the War Department would have to set up, with which the elementary and high schools would have to be coordinated. He said, "Yes." I asked him further if such a program would have any similarity to the military-indoctrination program which had been advocated by the Japanese military system for Japan prior to our present war. He said "Yes." I do not believe that most of the American Legion nor the War Department would go as far as Commander Sullivan did in this, but in his naïveté he pointed out that which would be essential in order to prepare the psychological attitude necessary for young men in readying themselves for peacetime military training. All nations which have tried peacetime conscription have found it necessary to coordinate the educational system with the military-training system.

And second, I also asked Commander Sullivan if he realized that modern military preparation, involving from 1 to 2 million men in a military establishment during peacetime, would necessitate a large industrial plant which would be dedicated to military production; and that the control needed by the military over such a large industrial plant and over the school systems of the country, as well as over the several million young men who are not only in training but under the orders of the Army for refresher courses, would necessitate placing political power in the hands of the high military officialdom which would be similar to that held through the years by the German General Staff. To this Commander Sullivan replied that he realized that this was not only likely but necessary. I commend him for an answer full of consistency and candor, even if it is politically unwise. However, this conversation with Commander Sullivan points out the thing which is becoming increasingly obvious. It is this-that the military power and the power culture which it represents, like a

cancer, voraciously consumes all of the body politic unless it is strictly and rigidly held in check by the X-ray of public scrutiny.

By establishing peacetime military conscription we would be building in America a political power beyond the two-party system and the lobbies which surround it, and its basic faith would lie in the ultimate appeal to physical power. Modern military training requires teeming piles of equipment and industrial production. In order to get this equipment to supply a million or so trainees, plus the four or five million men who might be involved in refresher courses would mean an honorable but nevertheless political alliance between certain large industrialists and the military-service forces. The military procurement officers would be sincere, efficient officers, but as such they would realize that their job demanded political pressure. Would a sincere military system refuse all the political power they felt necessary to defeat any and every enemy, and so refuse to use any control they might possess over the educational system? Would they refuse the opportunity for political support from two to six million young men who had gone through an indoctrination course conducted by the military, or negate the influence given by their contracts with large industrial groups, all of which could bring pressure to bear upon Congress? They never have felt impelled to restrain themselves in this respect, and it would be contrary to their basic beliefs to do so in the future. The well-known statements of the Truman investigating committee reveal this.

Under peacetime military conscription we do not in actuality establish a citizens' army any more than Germany established a citizens' army under an identical program. We, rather, establish under a professional military officialdom a sort of government whose faith is in power within our present Government, whose faith is supposed to be placed in reason and law. Take, for example, a selective-service system under peacetime military conscription. There would be in each tiny community throughout the country at least three or more men who would be under the direct or indirect control of this military government within the Government. Can we be assured that these men in peacetime would be volunteer workers of high community responsibility as are our present draft-board members, or would they be volunteers with affections and political interests already dedicated to a military system, or would they be political appointees on the Federal pay roll, subject not to political parties but to the military influ ence upon both parties? Would this add thousands upon thousands of employees in the system with judicial prerogative over the lives and fortunes of the citizens? There would necessarily be the possibility of some deferments, either to finish high school or to take special training or to have an operation or to get over a physical disability or to continue training for the clergy, medicine, and so forth. The decision of such a selective-service system would have to be nearly as arbitrary as it is at the present time, and it would be subject to all the pressures of peacetime vicissitudes. Even though this agency might be under nominal civilian direction, it must, by the very character of its work. come under the domination of the military system, even as our present selective-service system has come under this domination. How would such a system justly judge the freedom of conscience? How would it provide for the freedom of religion in peacetime under political

appointees, when it has found such a task almost beyond its power when wartime sacrifice has motivated outstanding community volunteer leaders to assume the responsibility for conducting such a system? Add the power of the veterans' organizations, which is now no mean political power, to the political power that a peacetime military training program involves, with the large permanent military staff which must administer such a program. Add to this the political powers of the large industrialists which would be keyed in to such an organization. Add to this the educational control that would be necessary. Add to this a peacetime selective-service system. Put this all under a system which believes in the hierarchy of command and you place power in the hands of strong individuals at the head of our military system in such measure that few would have the temerity to oppose it. But you say such men would be sincere, fine military heroes. I do not question it. But they would not be subject to all the criticism and control of their constituents, nor to the checks and balances which we have found so necessary to preserve democracy.

It seems as if the world is run by those who wield sheer physical power, and since we are in such a world we have to play the game of power as it is being played. But God in His wisdom has universally set at naught those whose faith is so placed in power. The ruins of such a faith has been drawn to a logical and extreme conclusion in the shells of blackened German cities. God has always seen fit to set at naught such a faith because it holds inherent within its own power its own weakness, for it lacks the capacity for self-criticism which is the seed of wisdom and strength. This is the basic reason why American soldiers are stronger and more full of initiative. History has proven this, experience has proven it, and every great religion in the world preaches it. Those who assent to the establishment of a military system in America will not break God's law but they could break America on the law of God, if we permitted it. This is why the churches and religious people of America, with overwhelming conviction, oppose peacetime military conscription. And this is why the American people instinctively shy away from such a military system, which must, by its very nature, place its ultimate faith in power rather than reason.

Chairman WOODRUM. Mr. Reisner, you may have stated, but I didn't catch it quite clearly. Are you a minister?

Mr. REISNER. I am the pastor of Richmond Avenue Methodist Church, in Buffalo.

Chairman WOODRUM. The Citizens Committee; is that a group of churches, or just citizens of Buffalo?

Mr. REISNER. Well, it gathered itself together almost instantaneously about 6 months ago. It involves these various groups in the councils of churches, also ministerial associations, and, as I mentioned, the Catholic diocese, the Jewish synagogues. It has been both groups and individuals.

Chairman WOODRUM. Could you give us some idea of the numerical strength of it?

Mr. REISNER. I would say it involves 200,000 people.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Would you say that all the 200,000 were opposed to universal military training?

Mr. REISNER. No. Never in my whole experience in the church have I found such tremendous unanimity on any one issue as I found on this matter of conscription. I will admit there are few here and there that hold diverse opinion, but if you can possibly gage a question like that, there has never been in my knowledge such unanimity. Mr. WADSWORTH. How do you account for the polls on this question showing approximately 70 percent in favor of it?

Mr. REISNER. I believe that is accounted for primarily by the fact that people at this time, with the war tension upon them, are thinking in terms of present experience in the emotional support of their sons

and brothers.

As an example, we have found when we have gone to speak to groups, along with Commander Sullivan and other members who feel this way, that though we may come into a meeting with a large group opposed to peacetime conscription, all that need be done is present the facts as we see them, and let them present the facts, and put both arguments side by side so both sides agree they are fair, and the overwhelming group decides to changes because under the pressure of the times people feel that way. I think that is fairly generally accepted. But when they begin to consider it in terms of their ancient reasoning and intelligence and background they tend to change. That is why I say American people shy away from the military system. That is why I brought in some of these things. It is almost inherent within an army to bring pressure upon its people to favor an increase in its power. I had one little pressure which I don't feel at liberty to quote the particular chaplain, but he happens to be a friend of mine in my conference, and he held a very important position. He told me he received a letter from the Chief of Chaplains stating that the chaplains should not speak against peacetime military conscription. On the other hand, I have received letters from chaplains on their official franked stationery taking vigorous official issue with an article which I wrote opposing peacetime military conscription. I brought that to the attention of the local military officials and asked if it was proper for him to participate in vaguely political activity. They said, "Certainly, that is his privilege." That is inherent within the nature of that type of system. There are marvelous people in charge of our military system and I hate to see it robbed of its strength, its vitality, for the protection of our country.

Chairman WOODRUM. Any other questions, gentlemen?

Thank you.

Mr. REISNER. Thank you.

Chairman WOODRUM. The committee will recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 2:55 p. m., an adjournment was taken until 10 a. m., Friday, June 8, 1945.)