states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

The provisions cited cover all the power of congress over the militia, and when fully and intelligently exercised, are ample to accomplish the purposes sought. Indeed, few people have ever realized the magnitude of the military power of the federal government, and have supposed that it was practically limited to raising and supporting the standing or regular army. But consider for a moment its power in regard to the militia. It can provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining this force equally in times of peace or war. This means that every able bodied male citizen of this broad land may be enrolled in the militia, and that this force may then be organized, as congress in its wisdom may deem advisable, into infantry, cavalry, artillery, or other branches of the military service, and then armed and disciplined or trained until the whole becomes an efficient military machine, and that the revenues of the nation may be used for these purposes. The limitations are that the states must appoint the officers and train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress. Armed with these powers, it becomes the duty of the federal government to provide a national militia capable of warding off the partial injuries and occasional mortifications referred to by President Jackson. That it has neglected so long to do so must be attributed to a failure to fully comprehend the nature of our government and the necessities of the situation.

The first law under its militia powers was passed by congress in 1792, but was repealed and superseded by the act of 1795. This act, however, was but a slight modification of the former, and, with few changes, has remained upon the statute books for over one hundred years (having been repealed only in 1903), notwithstanding the fact that it has long since been obsolete and an object of ridicule to those who have seriously considered the ways and means of a nation's defense. Bearing in mind that we have experienced several wars, and have witnessed the inadequacy of the militia as a means of national defense, it will be interesting to read a section of our militia laws as they stood at the beginning of the twenti

eth century, when the study of war had become a science, and the nations of the world were bending their energies toward perfecting their military systems.

Section 1628, R. S. (repealed January 21, 1903):

"Every citizen shall, after notice of his enrollment, be constantly provided with a good musket or firelock of a bore sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty four cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot pouch and powder horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred, and provided when called out to exercise or into service, except that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. And all arms, ammunition and accouterments so provided and required shall be held exempted from all suits, distress, executions or sales for debt, or for the payment of taxes. Each commissioned officer shall be armed with a sword or hanger and a spontoon."

I seriously doubt if in 1900 the militia of this country carefully complied with the above law, or the officers were armed with and understood the uses of the spontoon. At any rate the existence on our statute books of a law long since obsolete and absurd, proves either that we are a non-military people, dazzled by the hallucination of a coming universal peace, or that the development of our military policies has been controlled and hampered by conflicting influences, the dominant one being the ever present fear of creating a military hierarchy.

Coupled with this fear has been the idea, long prevalent, that on account of our territorial isolation and the consequent immunity from foreign aggression, we have little need of armies or of preparations looking to their prompt mobilization. The result has been a conflict of ideas, and until within the last few years an utter inability on the part of our legislators to agree upon any scheme or system competent to render the militia a really efficient force when called into the service of