Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you very much, General. Representative Wadsworth would like to ask you a question. Mr. WADSWORTH. General, turning to the eleventh page of your statement, referring to that paragraph near the topGeneral TOMPKINS. Yes.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Where it says, "It is deemed highly desirable that trainees be inducted on a quarterly basis"-will you explain that?

General TOMPKINS. Our idea is that if the trainees were inducted once each quarter, or quarterly, you could make better use of your facilities, you would not need so many training camps, and you would not need such a large number of trainer personnel. It would also mean that you would have available at any time at least one-fourth of your units with from 9 to 12 months' training, which would be advantageous, we think, to the country.

Mr. WADSWORTH. And under such a system, in a sense there would be four graduating classes per year, after you got started? General TOMPKINS. Yes.

Mr. WADSWORTH. After the completion of the first year, that is. How would you start the thing at the very beginning? Would you take in all of the young men, or only one-quarter of them for the first 3 months, another quarter for the second 3 months, and so on?

General TOMPKINS. You would normally take the young men who reach the age of 18 in that quarter; the local boards would perhaps defer a man who wanted to be deferred for another quarter for any particular reason; but, normally, you would take the man who would reach 18 in that quarter.

Mr. WADSWORTH. I see; thank you.

Chairman WOODRUM. Mr. Sparkman?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I have a question here.

Following up that thought, if you had the training age bracket from 18 to 20 when you start, would you have three classes, all of those who are 18, 19, or 20, or would you limit it in the start to those who are just 18!

General TOMPKINS. Well, normally I should think you would limit it at the start to those who were 18, on the basis that selective service will continue until the law is in full effect, and on that basis you would already have inducted the men who had become 19 or 20-they would already have been inducted in the present system.

Mr. SPARK MAN. One other question is suggested to me by your discussion of the use of reserves.

When we passed the original Selective Training and Service Act, section 3, I believe it was, provided that boys who had completed a year's training would go into a reserve for 10 years. I think that is the time. Is that still in force?

General TOMPKINS. Yes; that is in force.

Mr. SPARKMAN. They are actually discharged into a reserve? General TOMPKINS. At the present time they are being discharged. Whether they would be subject to recall under that provision is of course a question of law.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Thank you.

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you very much, General.

The committee will now recess until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12: 10 p. m., the committee recessed until 2 p. m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

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

Chairman WOODRUM. The committee will be in order.

The committee is very pleased to have present Dr. Daniel A. Poling, editor of the Christian Herald.

The committee is very glad to hear from you, sir.

STATEMENT OF DR. DANIEL A. POLING, EDITOR, THE CHRISTIAN HERALD

Dr. POLING. Thank you, Chairman Woodrum.

Gentlemen of the committee, I speak today as an American citizen and as editor of the Christian Herald, but in no other representative capacity.

I believe in the principle of universal military training because I believe in universal participation in government and because I believe that without universal participation democratic government cannot survive. I believe in universal military training because I believe that all citizens and future citizens should enjoy the privileges accorded under free government, and also participate in the duties of free government, duties which must be accepted and fulfilled if the privileges are to continue. Also, I believe in universal military training because I believe that American youth should receive the maximum physical, mental, and moral preparation for life and for citizenship.

Universal military training is not universal military service. It is not peacetime conscription and it is not a complete economic, educational, or social panacea. Universal military training is not the entrance to utopia but, gentlemen of the committee, I believe that universal training will make our young men physically stronger and

healthier, morally more self-reliant and better disciplined, socially more dependable, and that it will add to their over-all stature.

Observation and experience justify me in saying that it will help mature the emotional life of youth and also that it will help youth find himself in the field of a life vocation. I believe that it will teach youth to be tolerant, and give youth an appreciation of other racial and religious cultures than his own. I have watched men of all faiths and racial strains under all circumstances of armed conflict, and I believe that universal training will help give to America in the peace what our united services have given to us in the war-a united nation.

It has been argued that universal training is contrary to the tradition and spirit of America, that many came to these shores to escape universal service in Europe and to be free from the systems of military caste. This is true, but universal military service in Europe was under dictatorship; it was imposed from above; it was of the "divine right of kings." Universal military training here would be another thing altogether. Universal military training in America would be the choice of the people themselves and with democratic, educational and religious patterns unique in the history of governments. It would be within the tradition of our founding fathers but suited to the imperative requirements of the present world order and deisgned to perfect the Nation's defense and at the same time advance the cause of a just and enduring world peace.

In citing European precedents, the opponents of this principle generally ignore Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries. I made a brief visit to Switzerland in February of this year. I talked with religious and educational leaders. I asked specific questions concerning the Swiss system of universal training and service and I did not find one man who opposed the principal or the Swiss plan. Every person with whom I talked expressed the conviction that physically, educationally, and religiously-that in all ways-Switzerland is strengthened and enriched by universal training and service. Personally, I would be glad to have this Swiss program adapted to our needs and expanded to meet our American requirements. Certainly our proposed measure is equally sound in its application of the principle of defense and training to both our domestic and international situations.

It is not my purpose to discuss technical features of a particular measure. Others are better equipped for such discussion than am I, but I would emphasize basic and vast differences between systems used in other countries and the plan proposed here. And I have tables from which I have made my own studies, material gathered through the Research Department of NEA, which I shall leave with the committee.

(The tables referred to were filed with the committee.)

I believe that agriculture and organized labor, business, the public school, higher education, and the church, in all their interests, will be protected and strengthened by universal military training. But it is with religion and youth that I am especially concerned today and perhaps in these fields I may be expected to speak. May I say here that I find myself overlengthy as to time allotted me, and I am not reading all of my statement.

Chairman WOODRUM. We have plenty of time, so read it all.
Dr. POLING. Thank you, sir. I shall read it all.

I recognize the right of the pacifist to oppose universal military training and I respect his conviction, but his opposition should be regarded in the light of his attitude toward even a defensive war, should be regarded in the light of his refusal to support or participate in any war. I submit that I should state my attitude toward the basic matter of a nation's armed defense before arguing against this or any similar measure.

I believe that so long as there are too few men of good will to automatically assure peace in a community, there must be courts and a police force to protect property and life. The defense of a nation, while differing in particulars, is in principle the same and also, if we would further peace for mankind, then short of the millenium we must be as realistic nationally and internationally as we are in our community life. Conceivably, a community could pervert this principle, and become an aggressor community. New York could use its police force to attack Philadelphia, or Philadelphia could overrun Wilmington, but of course the whole idea is preposterous. But equally preposterous is the idea that to strengthen the defense structure of the American people would constitute a threat against any other people. I am much more concerned with the possibility that if we fail to make America strong and adequate in her defenses, we shall be lightly regarded when we speak for world peace.

With you, I have a profound concern that a concert of nations shall be established in support of permanent world peace and that eventually all nations shall be united to accomplish this benign result and that the world shall disarm. But this result is not yet accomplished. In the meantime, we owe it to our unborn to protect our heritage and theirs, to leave nothing undone which humanly is possible to us, nothing undone to preserve the freedom for which our sons have died.

The arguments used before Pearl Harbor-arguments successfully used to delay and even defeat the Nation's defenses, are now repeated. These arguments are as specious today as they were then, but surely now they are less excusable. Until I die, I shall remember the crosses and the stars of David, row on row, in the islands of the Pacific. Until I die, sir, I shall have before me the ghastly picture of torn and bleeding bodies scattered along the battle fronts, and until I die, I shall blame myself for my own inaction even before I condemn those others who argued that isolation and remoteness were an adequate defense and who thwarted the Government's effort to fortify Guam and to give MacArthur the equipment for which he pled. These youths of the golden years did not lose the last peace and they did not make this ghastly war, but they have borne and they are bearing its bloody load.

Reasonably, this measure will provide that never again shall America be unprepared, unprepared for war, but also unprepared for peace. And that never again shall the Nation lack physical stamina and strength in her rising generation, physical stamina and strength with which to meet the ordeals of life both at home and abroad. I believe that our very solicitations and arguments for a concert of nations in support of world peace will be weakened, misunderstood, and even rejected if we fail to make strong our own defenses. A weak