paredness; and like other men and women who saw that wrecking of the American public, I tried to help counterattack it.

Desiring to obtain a statement from our highest authority, I wrote General Pershing on December 8, 1926, asking if he could state the proportion of Americans who were needlessly slaughtered in 1917 and 1918 by well-meaning but uninformed and ill-advised pacifists who had prevented them from being given adequate military training in time to protect their lives on the battlefields.

General Pershing replied on December 14, and at a later date gave me permission to make his reply public. His statement as to the military training of our young men was highly important at that time when it was written, 18 or 19 years ago, when there was a general world peace.

Because of existing confusion and turmoil in several areas of the world, it is of even greater importance today.

Your attention is called to the second part of General Pershing's letter, which reads as follows:

It would be difficult to state with any degree of accuracy what percentage of our World War casualties were the result of insufficient training. I am of the opinion, however, that had we been reasonably prepared when we entered the war the end would have come in 1917, with an enormous saving of life and treasure.

How many lives and how much treasure would have been saved in this event, statistics were not kept by all the countries involved, but the number of men killed in action or died of wounds in 1918 must have been at least a million, probably several million, nor is it known how many innocent children, frail mothers, and infirm men and women perished from starvation or froze to death in 1918.

I should not like to be one of the pacifists responsible for that ghastly horror, and I don't want young boys of today, including my four grandsons, to be killed in action 20 or 25 years from now because the Congress refused to provide for adequate and sufficient military training.

On Monday of this week, June 11, General Hershey, Director of the Selective Service System, told me that out of more than 18,000,000 registered men, approximately 5,000 were rejected. Those exempted included ministers, divinity students, and other conscientious objectors; but the overwhelming majority of men rejected-not exempted— were rejected or were refused admission to the United States Army because of physical, mental, or moral defects-but that is not all. Selective Service Headquarters informed me on June 4 that of the young men between 18 and 29 who had been registered up to May 1, 1,864,332 were rejected. The figure, Mr. Chairman, is not reassuring. One of the first duties of an Army officer is to make sure that his men are in the pink of condition. In the training camp they are taught regularity, given the right kind of food and exercise needed to maintain their health and strength. Those underweight are built up. Those overweight gradually lose it.

In too many American homes there is no such thing as discipline, and neglect of discipline in the home is, to a large extent, responsible for juvenile crime. Only through wise discipline can be learned the most important lesson of life-self-control, and those attending military training camps have wise discipline.

Young men in military training camps are under supervision. The Army knows where each of them is, and that is not true of the average

home. Fathers and mothers should know that their sons are safe when they are in training camps and when at college or living elsewhere.

Brothels and whisky are not permitted in training camps.

A number of colleges are opposed to universal military training. The second group headed, I believe, by Dr. Ernest M. Hoskins, president of Dartmouth, feels it highly desirable. Because of the different attitudes, I venture to make the following suggestion which may or may not be approved by our military authorities:

Permit each young man to decide whether he wants to have military training when he becomes 18 or later, up to the age of 23. Young men who attended high school usually are graduated at the age of 18. Those who take a 2-year course in a junior college will be able to begin their military training at the age of 20, and young men who prefer a 4-year college course are through, as a rule, when they are 22, and then they could have their military training.

The suggestion here made is applicable to young men who look forward to professional life, or to a scientific career; having had 4 years of college and 1 year of military training, they could, at the average age of 23, enter universities or technical schools for postgraduate study, and they would snap into it with greater vigor and determination, because of their military training.

One of the ideas now put forward is that our young men, while living at home, could be given adequate military training by one evening a week spent in the National Guard Armory and spending a few weeks in the National Guard summer camp.

It resulted in tragedy.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept the idea that one drill per week in an armory and a few weeks at a National Guard summer camp will be sufficient. This plan, if adopted, would actually deceive our young men by making them think they were ready for combat with the enemy, and it would leave the American people, in the homes, deluded with the thought that our country was safe from attack. We must have authority for training, not only for active service with the Army but also in the Air Corps and in all of the armed services.

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Roop. Thank you, sir.

Chairman WOODRUM. The committee will now recess until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 11:45 a. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m., of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The committee reconvened at 2 p. m., pursuant to the recess, Hon. Clifton A. Woodrum (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

The committee is very happy to have Mr. Gibb Gilchrist, president of Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College, here.

Mr. GILCHRIST. I am glad to be here.

73951-45-pt. 1-30

STATEMENT OF GIBB GILCHRIST, PRESIDENT, AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS

Mr. GILCHRIST. This is a statement on a policy of universal military training on behalf of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas.

The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas is the land-grant institution of Texas giving instruction in agriculture, the mechanic arts, and military science. The college was created by an act of the Texas Legislature in 1871 and opened its doors in 1876. (A copy of its objectives is furnished with this statement.) There are between 45,000 and 50,000 former students now living; there are between 16.500 and 17,000 former students of the Agricultural and Mechanical College in the armed forces of the United States at this time. Of these, approximately 13,000 are commissioned personnel. At the beginning of the war there were some 6,000 Reserve officers who were former students of this college ready to enter the armed forces.

The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas has always offered courses in military science. In addition, students have been required to be in uniform on all occasions and the great majority of them have always lived together by military units in dormitories, have marched to mess. Military formations and ceremonies have been stressed and encouraged.

As a consequence, it may be said that a system of universal military training has been in effect on the campus of A. and M. College since its creation. Especially has this been true for the past 30 years when wars and threats of wars accentuated the need for sound military training. It has been found that military training at A. and M. has been beneficial to graduates and former students. By this training they have been improved in mind and in body and by the very method of housing and living they have found it necessary and desirable to get along with their fellows-to rub elbows with realities. Qualities of self-confidence and leadership have been the reward.

In view of what has just been cited, it was gratifying that an expression on a policy of universal military training was requested by this committee and that an opportunity was given to make a statement on the broad general question submitted by your chairman, namely, "Should there be universal military training in the United States in the postwar period?"

The governing body of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas is a board of directors of nine members. Early in 1944 the question of universal military training was considered by the board and a committee was appointed to study the question in line with the records and the traditions of the college and to report their findings. This committee was headed by Maj. Gen. H. J. Brees, United States Army, retired, a member of the college board of directors. Serving with him were representatives of the administrative staff and the faculty of the college.

About the same time, a committee for the same purpose was named by the Association of Former Students of A. and M. College. These committees, working independently, reported about the same time. The policy in four sections, which follows, was adopted by the board of directors of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas on October 14, 1944.

I. We believe in a sound program of national defense, adequately financed and maintained.

II. We believe that the time has come when the national welfare and the future peace and prosperity of the Nation can only be assured by a system of universal military training of our able-bodied male citizens in their early manhood.

III. We believe that a universal military training act should be passed which will afford the minimum possible disruption of normal educational processes, and which should include provision for due allowance and credit for military training in the ROTC.

IV. We believe in the preservation of balance and integrity between the Regular Army and its civilian components.

The policy adopted by the Association of Former Students was more inclusive, but did in fact cover in substance the four sections and as a consequence, the policy which has just been stated bears the endorsement not only of the board of directors and the administrative staff of the college, but of the Association of Former Students, representing a great mass of opinion. This policy bears also the almost unanimous approval of the members of the teaching staff of the A. and M. College.

In support of the four sections of this policy, the following might be submitted:

SECTION I

Certainly we shall not profit by our experience following World War I if we fail to provide a sound, well-financed, adequate, and continuous program of national defense, keeping up to date on all developments that might produce new instruments of offensive warfare, and being prepared with defensive measures to meet them. If we allow our defense measures to lapse to any considerable degree as we did in the 1920's and 1930's, many believe that the odds will be against us to win a third world war if it should come. We might never get started. A complete national defense must, of necessity, include provisions for a continuing technological development, for encouragement of free enterprise, and for intelligent and up-to-date research in all the sciences.

SECTION II

A high officer in the armed forces was heard to say that in World' War I the United States, due to defenses set up by the Allies of this country, had time to mobilize, train, and to fight. In World War II, due in the main to stalwart battles by the British and to a certain amount of good fortune, the United States again had time to mobilize, to train, and to fight. Should World War III come, we would likely have time only to mobilize and to fight. This is a strong argument for some form of sound and enduring universal military training.

To be successful, this training should include only able-bodied male citizens and should be based wholly and solely on military necessity. Everything else should be secondary.

SECTION III

In the question of the length and the continuity of the training there lies perhaps the greatest element of difference among those who believe wholeheartedly in a sound universal military training plan.

To have a chance for survival, any law of military service must be fundamental and of such a nature that it will remain a popular law. It must be built around the unchanging theory that in a democracy universal military training must be based on national defense and military necessity so that the United States may be kept out of future world conflicts. Any universal military training law will likely be repealed.

(a) If it unduly retards youth in entering either schools or gainful employment;

(b) If it handicaps production industries by eliminating a pool of needed labor or scientific men in certain age brackets; or

(c) If it produces a military caste not responsive to the will of the people, for civil authority must always be paramount.

We have been told that servicemen have endorsed the universal military training plan by a considerable majority. In spite of that the Universal Military Training Act, if passed, must be such as to merit their continued support when they return to civilian life because these men will determine the military policy of this country for a good many years. They do not want their sons to be called upon 20 or 25 years hence to go into a third world war. They are going to want a practical, commonsense policy of training which will disrupt normal processes as little as possible. If it takes 12 months of training, that is what we should have; but no convincing argument has yet been heard as to why, in all cases, the training should be continuous. This seems to be a question for the Congress to decide as a matter of national policy. Once that policy is adopted, it should be the duty of the entire citizenship and all its institutions to accomplish the purposes within the policy for the good of the whole country and its people. The real national defense value of any system of universal military training will be destroyed if the period of training is too long, or if it interferes unnecessarily with the educational development of young men. Certainly repeal of any such law will leave a defenseless and pacifist United States.

Any such program of academic study to supplement military training should be of a substantial nature, approved by the State educational authorities. There seems to be no reason why training of young men under a universal policy could not take place reasonably close to their own homes but it is vital that this program not be used for propaganda purposes or to impose some idealistic theory on the youth of this country. Academic study to supplement military training should not be delegated solely as a responsibility of the Army or Navy, but should remain as an unrestrained free enterprise of the citizenship of the country.

SECTION IV

We must have strong National Guard units and strong ROTC institutions during peacetime as well as in wartime. Any plan of universal military training must take these things into account. The law setting up universal military training should provide for the preservation of balance between the Regular Army and its civilian components. Particularly will it require every facility now available and necessitate the expansion of others to train officers for the vast civilian reserve that would be created by universal military training. If universal military training is used to advance any set of institutions or any