powerful Navy in the world and vast supplies of military equipment for meeting any emergency after this war.

They maintain that compulsory military training would cause youth to become better citizens by "giving a year to democracy" and learning how to defend it. This has patriotic appeal but it does not stand up under examination. How could it when the very nature of such training is strictly authoritarian? Men are taught what to think, not how to think. They are conditioned, through strict discipline, to obey orders, respect commands, and do what they are told. If this is preparation for citizenship in a democracy, then our entire educational system should be revised.

It is said that unpreparedness is an invitation to war-that the hope of peace and security lies in a large standing army capable of causing any aggressor nation to think twice before launching an attack. This assumption disagrees with the facts. History shows clearly that the presence of a conscript army has never been a deterrent to any nation bent on conquest. Even Hitler attacked Russia despite her large standing army and the difficulties it created in prosecuting a war on two fronts.

This assumption implies moreover, that we shall need a large army to protect ourselves in the near future. Who are the nations that threaten us with attack? Certainly they are not the nations of South America; we are doing our best to carry on friendly relations with them. We do not look for attack from Great Britain, China, France, Italy, Germany, or Japan. That leaves Russia as the only major power capable of engaging this country in a war. Our relations with Russia suggest a continuing friendship through international machinery and economic agreements that strike at the underlying causes of war. This argument, like many others, lacks any foundation in fact. Proponents of military training also present many theoretical values for use and for the welfare of the Nation. They talk about health benefits and sentimentally about giving a year toward democracy, without defining what that means, and talk about the benefits of training at various time and what it will do for unemployment and talk about the saving in lives that would come through such preparation, and also of the need for a quantity of troops in policing the world, and they maintain that there have always been an inadequate number of volunteers, or volunteer enlistments in times of peace.

And they conclude that if such an act were found not worthy, it could be repealed if it were necessary.

I think it should be noted that none of the arguments thus far submitted threw any light or dealt directly with the real issue, and that is, is there really any threat to our national security which calls for the enactment of peacetime conscription in wartime.

We know that the facts do not justify the passage of such legislation at this time. Yet the groups behind the proposal are waging a rugged fight to jam it through. Why? Obviously, they do not believe that the idea of compulsory military training would be acceptable to the American people after the tensions of the war have had a chance to subside. They are basing their contention largely upon the wave of pacifism which followed in the wake of World War I. They are also skeptical about the position which ex-service men and women might take on the question of a permanent standing army, and there is some precedence in this instance because Australian troops during the

First World War twice voted against making conscription permanent in that country.

I think we must also recognize that the professional military group have a large stake in this proposal. They would become more deeply entrenched as a vital part of our national life and enjoy a status commonly found in European nations which had conscription before the war. And it is not inconceivable that this group, working in combination with others who have a vested interest in military training, would become increasingly a more potent political force in shaping national policy. In view of this, the strong support they are giving to the proposal for compulsory military training is understandable.

A powerful impetus to the conscription movement has also come from some business and industrial groups who stand to profit richly from the sale of supplies and equipment that would be needed for the maintenance and operation of a large army. Their contracts would cover thousands of items from shaving soap to battleships-contracts which could easily stretch far into the future. It is entirely possible that these groups believe sincerely in the necessity of compulsory military training. If they do, there is no valid reason why they should not be willing to postpone a decision on the question until after this

war.

The Greater Philadelphia Committee Against Wartime Enactment of Peacetime Conscription believes that no decision should be made during the war which commits this Nation to a postwar policy of peacetime conscription. It holds to this position for the following

reasons:

First. A policy with such far-reaching consequences needs fuller discussion than is possible in wartime. The subject is very new for Americans, yet one that deserves the most informed and unhurried of judgments. Congress should give it extended consideration. But Congressmen and everyone else are preoccupied with the more pressing duties and decisions of war.

Secondly. The decision should be taken only at a time when those now in the armed services of our country can register their convictions. Their voices should first be heard, but obviously this cannot be done until they once more enjoy civilian status after the war.

Three. Since laws such as those now in effect are sufficient to cover wartime needs, the passage of peacetime conscription is not required now by any wartime military necessity. The Selective Service Act is adequate for all wartime needs, and easily renewable. Peacetime conscription legislation would have nothing to do with carrying on the war.

Fourth. Since it is not yet known what manner of international organization will emerge, it is impossible now to decide what the Nation's postwar military needs will be. Debate upon our long-range military needs can be neither fair nor intelligent at this time, because no one can at present foresee the situation at the close of the war which alone can determine our postwar military requirements.

Fifth. The adoption of peacetime conscription by our Nation at this time might endanger the cooperation and good faith among nations so essential to world order. We want a lasting peace, and mutual trust is fundamental. We should do nothing to let other nations think that our first concern is to become a great military power by ourselves rather

than to work with them cooperatively in establishing a stable world organization and keeping the peace collectively. At Dumbarton Oaks we have started in one direction. Let's keep going that way.

This committee considers it imperative that the American people express their convictions on this issue before permitting Congress to enact legislation in the belief that it is what the people of this country want. They must realize that a decision in favor of it may mean the start of the biggest armament race the world has ever seen; that it would represent a break with American tradition and the inevitable establishment of a military caste that goes along with a large standing army; that living in an armed world might mean the loss of much liberty for which the present war is being fought; that it would saddle a huge burden of taxes upon a Nation now heavily in debt; that it would be wasteful of human and natural resources; that it would add nothing to the standard of living in this country; and that once such a law is on the books, the chances of repealing it are slim in the face of a combined military and business lobby.

The committee is of the opinion that public support would be given to the proposal for compulsory military training if facts could be produced showing the need for it. There are no convincing facts which indicate or even suggest at this time that the passage of such a bill is necessary. The decision concerning so important a proposal should be postponed until after the present war.

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. KINDRED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WOODRUM. The High School Teachers Association of New York City, Inc., represented by Mr. William F. Saunders, of New York City, will be heard at this time.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. SAUNDERS, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK CITY, INC.

Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Chairman Woodrum, and members of the committee, the High School Teachers Association of New York City whose membership is over 4,000 is opposed to compulsory military training. We believe that for the present that the existing Selective Service Act is sufficient legislation in this respect.

The New York City high schools, numbering more than 50, have organized and conducted war courses in cooperation with the War Department which have adequately met the needs to date. Upon recent recommendations of the military authorities the board of education is expected to decrease this week the number of war courses required for graduation from high school.

The High School Teachers Association is interested in the present and future welfare of secondary school pupils and is cognizant of the fact that their future will to a large degree determine the future course of American life. Compulsory conscription can interfere with the continuous education of youth and lay waste 4 precious years of highschool training spent in preparation for college and professional education. In time secondary education itself would be discouraged. A compulsory universal system of military training would result in setting up a large and very complex organization which we fear may in time deteriorate into a huge system of political patronage.

The necessary public expenditure for conscription is unpredictable. We suggest that the taxpayer is already heavily overburdened and call attention to the plight of the professional man and woman whohave not profited by the war. In the absence of proof that universal military service is a guaranty of security and of world peace, we question the value of the huge financial obligation to the taxpayer and suggest that serious interference with the education of youth may in turn result in decreasing their ability to pay taxes in the future. It is an established fact that education pays and that there is a direct relationship between education and the wealth of a community. Interfere with education and you take away future progress and success of the citizenry, with resulting losses to the State and to the Nation.

We question the advisability of making a decision on a problem affecting the future of so many of our citizens at a time when the spirit of the Nation is wholeheartedly in support of a war. Has the fervor for war been the reason for the consideration of universal military training at this time? Should we not consider more justifiable motives for discussing the future of our youth such as national security and world peace?

It is an established fact that the physical condition of a soldier is of prime importance in battle. It is also admitted by military authorities that the amount of military drill actually needed by a soldier to prepare him for battle can be given in a relatively short period of time. Many of the American soldiers who cracked the supposedly unbeatable German Army which was possessed with traditions of autocratic might, were engaging in athletics of a democratic type as schoolboys in America a short 6 months before. Patriotic organizations such as the American Legion have always rallied to the support of wholesome school programs of health education which to a large degree should solve one of the most unfortunate conditions of our time; namely, the rejection for selective service of over 4,000,000 youths. We suggest the attention of Congress and the proponents of conscription be directed toward measures which can be taken to eliminate to a large degree the reasons for rejection. Among 18-year-olds, 5 out of every 100 have been rejected for defects of vision which could have been corrected. Strict laws governing health education in schools could have eliminated a large amount of these conditions. A universal military training law would not.

Two out of every hundred registrants have been rejected for service because of mental unfitness; a condition which can possibly be corrected by Federal aid to education but certainly not by a Federal conscription act.

More than 2 out of every 100 registered have had to be rejected because of crippling conditions such as those resulting from accidents, infantile paralysis, tuberculosis, and heredity. Can anyone devise a system of universal military service which would correct this?

The fourth great cause of rejection is due to cardiovascular defects-2 out of every 100 registrants. Many of these conditions spring from rheumatic fever and other acute infectious diseases. We cannot correct these conditions. The only solution appears to be in the field of corrective medicine. Would conscription provide for this situation?

The fifth cause in rank order for rejection is educational deficiency. One of every one hundred youths registered is illiterate and even unable to comprehend orders. Most of these could have been prepared for citizenship by adequate schooling. We could continue the list of reasons for rejection to include the next 10 in order and still be without a single one which a year's compulsory military service would prevent. No type of 1 year's training can correct 17 years of neglect.

May we suggest that in order to enhance the security of our Nation both in war and peace that the educational and health deficits heretofore mentioned be liquidated by your honorable body by helping the school teachers to enroll the 2,000,000 American children not now in school who should be there. Help us to raise the general level of all education so that the sons of the half million registrants who have had to sign their names with an "X" will at least be able to read and write. We urge you to blot out of American life forever the stigma of 10,000,000 adults who have never attended school. Ignorance foments trouble. Physically fit youths who have received the benefits of adequate education will later be adults capable of exerting the necessary economic, social, and political influence on the world which will maintain for America world leadership and everlasting peace. It seems to be more expedient at this time for your honorable body to consider a national physical-fitness program rather than a national conscription act.

In view of these facts, we conclude that conscription cannot be defended as an educational procedure but can only be weighed as a means of national security. In the absence of evidence that peacetime conscription is essential at this time to national security we oppose it. We believe the present selective-service law to be adequate to meet present manpower needs and that it is impossible at this time to reach any sound judgment as to the future needs in this respect. We believe that the majority of Americans are hopeful that an international system of security through checking aggression through international action will in the future relieve this and all other nations of the burden of a large military establishment. It is reasonable to question therefore the interference with the plans for world peace that universal conscription would cause if enacted at this time. We fail to see causative relationship existing between a year's compulsory military service for youth and national security. May we also suggest that to focus the attention of the Nation on conscription as national security may eventually lead to a national lethargy that would give no stimulus to such fundamentals of national preparedness as scientific research and development, industrial productivity, a sound foreign policy, and the general health of the Nation, all of which we believe that in the degree to which they are developed contribute to national security.

The threat to America's future lies not in the absence of a large peacetime Army but in the lack of a well-informed, intelligent public opinion which is ready and able to face the world and prepared with the proper policies to check the rise of aggressive power. The Nation will better protect itself through eternal vigilance and intelligence in foreign matters than in a narrow outward expression of defense by military power alone.