to which disparaging reference is too often made. I refer to those unfortunates who have dishonorably terminated their connection with the service. The published statistics of this class can hardly be accepted as a fair criterion of the amount of crime in the army, for the reason that many such discharges are the results of purely military offenses and are without criminal significance. In the majority of cases the punishment is the result of an inability to adjust the previously conceived ideas of personal freedom to the moderate restraint of army discipline. Many of this class realize when too late the error into which they have fallen and would gladly re-enter the service if permitted to do so. In every military prison there are scores of young men who would undoubtedly serve honorably and with benefit to the army, did the military code permit of their re-enlistment. The majority of those returning thus to civil life bear no resentment toward the military service and realize fully that they have only suffered the penalty of their own indiscretions.

It is with a degree of trepidation that I approach what seems to me to be a logical deduction. The advocacy of anything savoring of compulsory military service is a challenge to American sentiment and tradition. Commercial enterprise is quick to brook interference with its progress, the more especially, when such interference is not productive of at least prospective financial benefit. The average American is intolerant of anything which restrains him in the full exercise of his own free will. Such a sentiment combined with lack of education and its accompanying disadvantages can only result in the spirit of lawlessness with which the public is already too familiar. The protection of life and property in the large cities has developed into a situation with which the police facilities seem unable to cope. The problem might better be solved by preventative than by punitive measures. If a term of compulsory military service of one, two or even three years would result in the physical and moral improvement of the individual; if it would inspire him with a more profound respect for and obedience to the law; then commercial interest might well afford the temporary inconvenience of such a separation in view of the advantages to be derived from the service of a

superior class of trained and disciplined members of society. If we are to believe that sturdy physiques and sound personal principles are valuable assets in the manhood of a nation, the conclusion seems to point persistently to something akin, at least, to the military training of youth.

The army is an expensive institution whose periods of active service are, happily, separated by longer periods of peace. Its maintenance during such periods of military inactivity is a question of political expediency which does not permit of argument. Its function during such periods cannot justly be characterized as one of passivity, for it is ever busied with careful, conscientious preparation wherein it can never hope to attain a permanent degree of perfection, but must content itself with the molding of raw material into more perfect manhood and distributing the results amid the ranks of society.

EMINENCE OF THE AMERICAN ARMY.

BY J. C. TUTT.

[J. C. Tutt, historian, born Warrenton, Va., March 31, 1851; graduated from Caldwell academy in St. Louis; has devoted his life to the study of history and the writing of articles on political and historical topics for magazines and newspapers, and has for several years written a weekly historical article for the St. Louis GlobeDemocrat.]

In a recent debate on the army reorganization bill in the British house of lords, Sir Garnet Wolseley characterized the American army as the best in the world. That certainly is an extraordinary declaration. We haven't many soldiers and never made any great pretense at military training, yet here by the testimony of the first strategist in Europe, who knows all systems, our army is given the proud position of pre-eminence. To grasp the meaning of this assertion one must contemplate the vast military forces of the continental European nations. All that is requisite with them to precipitate war, aside from financial preliminaries, is the mobilization and the forward movement of troops. Equipment, discipline and a numerical strength approaching a war footing are kept up continuously. The government rests on the army. We saw how quickly two nations could appear in battle when Germany and France fought and how profoundly both governments were affected by the result.

When a young man Garnet Wolseley participated in the campaign of the Crimea and has been at the front in all the memorable military movements of his country. He is a soldier tried and true and is intellectually equal to great occasions. The reason his record is not more brilliant is that his country is insular and is not a land fighting power. But he has the keenest possible appreciation of soldierly qualities. He knows what they are and what kind distinguish men as superior. On this point his testimony is of the highest order. There is probably not another man living so well qualified to speak. His knowledge, his experience and his personal observation all combine to make him a star witness on the merit of

soldiers. And he says that, in his judgment, the American army is the best in the world. But Lord Wolseley is of opinion that the wages of the United States soldiers are a big factor in the total sum of qualities that determine his superiority. The liberal wages are a highly commendable feature of our military system, but it is doubtful if they contribute as much to the eminence, or excellence of the American army as Lord Wolseley thinks they do. It was gratifying to the volunteer soldiers to receive a big roll of money when paid off and discharged at the end of the month but that was not the object of his enlistment and service. He went to war on the reputation of his country. That was at stake, and he defended it.

This government pays its private soldiers $13 a month, and it paid those engaged in the Spanish American war 20 per cent additional. It gives a major general $7,500 a year and adds to this amount, up to a certain time, 10 per cent after each five years of service. Between the major general and the second lieutenant the pay ranges down to $1,400. That is not extravagant, but it is liberal and is enough. The officer, we see, has the best of it, though in the increase for the war he received only 10 per cent, half the share of a private. A premium is put on his skill and he is recompensed for his arduous course at West Point. So much money will stimulate the best faculties and command the finest energies, but go above a certain mark of economy and it loses its force. It then becomes an object. With the rank of the American army it certainly is not an object. And what Lord Wolseley says in this respect has some weight on the theory that a man should have enough. But, after all, it is a small way of dealing with a big matter. That the army of this republic is the best is no ordinary declaration. It is, indeed, a wonderful saying. For the fact confronts us that we are not equipped like the nations of Europe. What is it, then, that gives us such renown in a military way? It is a little difficult to attribute it to the of soldiers. That is all right in serving its purpose, but its purpose is not the achievement of military eminence. That is a great thing and is the expression of some great silent activites. It invites inquiry as to whether true principles prevail in the formation and regulation of armies.

VOL 9-11

pay

Germany can put more men in the field in less time than any other nation, and all her reserves are strong. France is next in capacity for putting troops in action, and Russia ranks third. But neither Germany nor France has the reserve strength that Russia has, though the former beats her in the total war footing. Before the volunteers were discharged after the war with Spain the United States had only 100,000 men in service, which looks rather small alongside of two million or thereabout on the first call. Yet not one of the European powers here mentioned has a war total equal to that of this country estimated on the fighting strength developed in the rebellion. There is where we get an absolutely correct basis, counting the growth in population, for calculations as to what the United States can do in a military way. We do not know on just how broad a ground Lord Wolseley makes the assertion that the American army is the best in the world, but from any point of view he speaks advisedly. It is the best. Still the mystery of why it is so is not explained. There is a vast difference between a force of 100,000 and one of 2,000,000. And in that difference will likely be found the reason why the large army, numbering about half a million in peace and сараble of being quadrupled almost momentarily, is inferior to the small one organized with some difficulty. It is twenty times its size, and Lord Wolseley says it is not nearly so good. In this matter, as in all things scientific, we have to deal with both theory and practice, and the question is whether or not European military establishments are constructed on a false principle and that of the United States on a right one.

As already pointed out, there are millions of men in Europe ready to spring to arms while in this country there are comparatively few, yet on a war footing the United States will lead any other nation. These most extraordinary facts, and not the wages paid soldiers, explain the eminence, or greatness, of the American army. And what is the lesson it gives to the world? That war is not a legitimate profession, and that putting the strength of a nation in perpetual training for it is a waste of energy. The problem involved embraces the entire realm of life, and presents the relative merits of action and repose. There is always more or less controversy as to the prepa