training. If our thought interposes any serious obstacle in the passage of the act, I feel that we should cooperate in the interest of future peace. I have also felt that our ROTC should be expanded after the war and the training intensified. And, in conclusion: I favor a League of Nations, a World Court, an International Security League. I rejoice in all the fine work now being done at San Francisco, and all the magnificent work done by President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, Marshal Stalin in pleading for a just and lasting peace. All that can be done for many years to come is to set up the framework and as exigencies occur modify it.

Until this work has been completed, I favor universal military training to let the people of this world know that America demands world peace and that America has the armed forces to enforce international security.

The millenium is not here, but world chaos is. I cannot see the world today as a perfectibilian, but as a realist. Universal military training embodies the essence of democracy in imposing alike upon all equal responsibility for the maintenance of the democratic state and the freedoms they derive from this. I do not care what inconvenience it may bring to any institution or any individual or what difficult problems it may bring to labor, business, or education. Great as these problems seem they are minor problems, for they are all material.

The only important thing in this world today is that never again shall our boys have to carry the flag up the slopes of Shuri or walk this Gethsemane. Universal military training will provide a Nationwide preparedness which might change possibilities into probablities. We shall not be able to go to sleep on the day after the surrender of the Axis powers and then wake up and find a perfect world. We can only make it slowly with blood and sweat. The future must be made mainly by those who are bleeding and sweating now. To use this great chance more wisely than we did after 1918 is a trust that we hold alike for our honored dead, for the living, and for the generations yet unborn. Let the Congress at once pass a universal military training act to protect our boys and the United States from another war, and let us consecrate ourselves to the ideals of our country and rededicate our all to the perpetuation of those principles which have made us a great and glorious people.

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you very much, Dr. Sanford, we are very happy to have had you with us.

Dr. SANFORD. Thank you, sir.

Chairman WOODRUM. The national board of the Young Women's Christian Association, represented by Mrs. Dorothy Groeling, will now be heard.

STATEMENT OF MRS. DOROTHY GROELING, SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL BOARD FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION, YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Mrs. GROELING. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Postwar Military Policy, the statement of the national board of the Young Women's Christian Association has been filed with your com

mittee, and giving our reasons for belief that a decision on universal military conscription should not be made during the war.

This statement refers to the long and careful study made in the Board and its committees-and the four reasons were given for postponement of the decision were as follows:

1. A more reasoned study of military needs can be made in peacetime when emotions are less acute and when the precise nature and strength of armaments needed for national defense and fulfillment of international obligations are known.

2. Careful scrutiny of other possible plans for national defense should be made, particularly in the light of relationship between manpower and modern methods of warfare.

3. Those serving in the armed forces should have the opportunity to register their opinions.

4. Achieving of an effective United Nations organization would be jeopardized.

These reasons have been emphasized in other statements before the committee, and I will not enlarge upon them.

Because our stand is in favor of postponement of the decision on these questions, we do not enter here into an argument on the merits or disadvantages of the military training.

Meanwhile, representatives of the YWCA listen to opposing points of view on this question.

The national board of the YWCA recognizes the importance of adequate national defense and of force behind the peace. The question is: What kind of force will best assure our own protection and will fully implement our international obligations?

We have long supported the principle of collective security and even if it develops that the United Nations is to be only our secondary line of defense, it will still be an open question whether our first line should be based on universal military training.

We would like to see the door left open to international action for the limitation of armaments as progress is made toward collective security.

There are so many vital issues involved in universal military training that a careful study of all alternatives in the light of rapidly changing conditions of modern warfare should be made, and we feel that such a decision can best be taken after the war, with, meanwhile, the necessary extension of the Selective Service System.

The national board of the YWCA speaks for a constituency of over 3,000,000 women and girls throughout the country, and questions such as this one are discussed in our public affairs committees and in both community and student YWCA's.

The statement of the national board was submitted to the country, as a part of our public affairs program, which would originally have been discussed and voted upon in our national convention, which, of course, was not held this year.

The question of universal military training is very widely discussed in many community meetings, stay-at-home conventions, and a great deal of interest was shown in it, and a total of five associations were not in agreement, in one way or another, with the position of the national board; and, four others were undecided, or expressed the need of more study before making a decision.

I will be very glad to answer questions as to the board's point of view, if anyone cares to ask them.

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you very much, Mrs. Groeling.

Mrs. GROELING. Thank you, sir.

Chairman WOODRUM. The National Grange, Mr. Fred Bailey, legis

lative counsel, is our next witness.

The committee will be glad to hear you, sir.

STATEMENT OF FRED BAILEY, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, THE NATIONAL GRANGE

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Postwar Military Policy, the National Grange believes it would be a grave mistake to rush precipitously into compulsory military training as a national peacetime policy at this time. The stresses of war and our efforts to establish permanent peace machinery are factors which caution us against hasty action.

The

The American people never have been a militaristic people. policy of the National Grange in the past has been opposition to compulsory military training as a national peacetime policy. The question of compulsory military training is and always has been an open question; never one closed to changing needs.

From the very inception of our liberty on this continent we have jealously guarded our prerogative of making democratic decisions after full and open opportunity for all to be heard in the expression of their views.

The position of the National Grange on peacetime conscription is clearly stated in the following resolution:

Throughout the history of our Nation the American people have never been a military people. We have devoutly believed in the ways of peace and opposed the maintenance of a large standing military establishment. Now, during the abnormal conditions incident to fighting the World War, an effort is being made to change our historic national policy and adopt one of compulsory military training. The National Grange is opposed to adopting any such policy at this time and for the following reasons:

1. There is no present need. Existing emergency legislation provides ample authority for conscription and training while war lasts, and there will be an amply trained force for the immediate years ahead.

2. We have high hopes that the peace may be such that the chance, of nations again resorting to war will be greatly minimized.

3. The men who are fighting this war will be largely those who will be responsible for keeping the peace in the years to come. Their experience qualifies them to render sounder judgment on this question than any others, and no hasty action should be taken which will prevent the expression of their will on a question so vital.

Since present laws are adequate for the Nation's protection, any action on the question of military training should be deferred until the stress of war gives way to the sober judgment of peace; until the terms of any international agreement are known; and until the men at the front have ample opportunity to participate in the determination of policies so far-reaching.

The National Grange believes that there are a number of questions which need to be answered before a sound and sober decision can be made as to the need and wisdom of compulsory civilian military training in peacetime. Some of those questions are—

First. What will be the cost in money; in the effects on moral and educational development of our youth?

Second. Have we exhausted all other means of maintaining the peace and our national security?

Third. Are we certain that what we seek to do by compulsory military service cannot be accomplished by more desirable means?

Fourth. Would such a move now prejudice our chances of establishing a permanent peace organization?

The National Grange believes that those are among the questions on which we should seek an answer before making such a serious decision as that of embarking on a national policy of peacetime military conscription.

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

The War Resisters League in Opposition to Peacetime Conscription, Mr. Edward C. M. Richards is next. Will you proceed, please.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD C. M. RICHARDS, REPRESENTING THE WAR RESISTERS LEAGUE IN OPPOSITION TO PEACETIME CONSCRIPTION

Chairman WOODRUM. Tell us a little something about your organization, Mr. Richards.

Mr. RICHARDS. The organization of the War Resisters League was formed in 1923. It was gotten together on the basis of merely one thing, namely, opposition to war as a method. The idea being that we did not ask why we were opposed to war or what associations or religious affiliations we might have-all we asked was: Are you opposed to war?

This was back in 1923. Gradually, the members have increasedof our membership in this country-while over the whole world the members have increased also. Internationally, there are War Resisters League centers or members in some 64 nations.

In this country, we have a membership of approximately 11,256, on December 31, 1944.

I believe that is the accurate picture.

Chairman WOODRUM. Did your organization take any position on the Selective Service Act, passed in 1940?

Mr. RICHARDS. I think they demanded for that the recognition of the rights of conscience in the draft law.

Chairman WOODRUM. Is your organization opposed to war in any form under any circumstances?

Mr. RICHARDS. I have that in here, and I will be glad to read it to you, sir.

Chairman WOODRUM. All right, go ahead.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have been appointed by the executive committee of the War Resisters League to present this testimony to you. In order to dispel any ideas which might come to the minds of members of the committee to the effect that members of the War Resisters League are a "bunch of crackpots," allow me to introduce myself.

I was born in Elizabeth, N. J., where my father, Howard Richards, practiced law. He was for many years treasurer of the diocese of New Jersey. Completing my course in Lawrenceville School, I went to and was graduated from the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University and then from the Yale Forest School. As a private

consulting forester, and later on as forester for the TVA, I practiced my profession for many years. I am now operating my 50-acre general-purpose farm near West Chester, Pa. For family background, my great grandfather, William Richards, was a standard bearer for George Washington at Valley Forge. My grandfather on my mother's side, Edward Carrington Mayo, after whom I was named, lived outside of the city of Richmond, Va., his ancestor, John Mayo, having laid out that city. I have had the privilege of traveling in the interest of my profession of forestry through the British Isles, western Europe, central Europe, and the Balkans. During the years 1930 and 1931 I drove my Ford car through most of Germany and neighboring countries visiting the foresters and inspecting the forests there. This was before Hitler came to power and while Germany did not have conscription, France, Switzerland, Poland, and Czechoslovakia did operate under that system. I recall at the time the contrast in the attitudes toward war and fighting between the German people of that day and some of their neighbors. Early in 1931 I had to spend some time in the south Tyrol which was under the control of Mussolini, and was impressed with the unsatisfactory results of the Fascist system in its administration of that strictly Austrian Province. I am a member of the religious Society of Friends, a life member of the American Forestry Association, and a senior member of the Society of American Foresters.

Last winter the executive committee of the War Resisters League adopted the following official resolution in regard to postwar military conscription:

(a) We are opposed to conscription and ask for nothing but the abolition of conscription.

(b) If conscription is put into effect, it is our conviction that the only way conscience can be recognized is by provision for absolute exemption for all who are opposed to conscription.

(c) Therefore we will work on behalf of all men, who are opposed to conscription, whether they accept alternative service or do not accept it. Our purpose will be to gain the absolute freedom of men from conscripted service of any kind, whether in prison or out of prison.

(d) We are completely opposed to the acceptance of responsibility by pacifists for the direction or administration of alternative service.

(e) We urge our Government to propose to the United Nations the universal abolition of conscription.

The War Resisters League, as is evidenced by its name, is opposed to war. Its official pledge, which every member signs, reads as follows:

War is a crime against humanity. I therefore am determined not to support any kind of war, international or civil, and to strive for the removal of all the causes of war.

Because it is opposed to war itself, the league is also opposed to conscription for the reason that modern war cannot be carried on without conscription. You will remember that 140 years ago Napoleon was the Hitler of his day, perpetrating military aggression over Europe with ruthless determination. He was able to do this because of the use of conscription, by which he secured from France 2,613,000 men between the years 1800 and 1813. His success so impressed the militarists of Europe that, headed by Prussia, conscription became the practically universal system on the Continent. This in turn led to the extreme military tension culminating in the outbreak of war in 1914. So serious was this threat of conscription, that at the end of