reserve at the end of one year if a well-trained soldier. Now, if a man is transferred to the reserve at the end of a year he spends the balance of his enlistment, or six years, in the reserve. You see the point. Release from service with the colors after one year for the efficient soldier. This will give us gradually just what we wanted, a large reserve. I have gone further and said let us transfer men to the reserve the moment their superior officers decide they are well-trained soldiers. The man may have had training in some other army. He may have been taught in a military college, or he may have received training of value in the militia. The point is, that when the captain. of a company and his officers decide Private A, for instance, is a welltrained soldier, we want him transferred to the reserve and put another man in his place and be training him.

Senator BRADY. I think that is a splendid suggestion. Gen. WOOD. That is what we have been working for. But we have had to hold up the transfers to the reserve on account of the Mexican situation. The feeling has gone out among the men that we are going to hold them to long enlistments, that the privilege afforded by the law, or rather the favor or consideration permitted by the law, is not to be extended. This is having an unfortunate effect. I think it would be better to transfer every man who is well trained to the reserve. I think by doing so we would show to the public generally that a man may come in and if he is decent, intelligent, honest, and industrious, that he can be transferred (furloughed) to the reserve at the end of a year. In other words, you will lose a little at first, but you will gain in public confidence. At Plattsburg, where we have all kinds and conditions of men, a great many of the best type of men came to me, literally hundreds, in a single season, saying, "If we could enlist in the Regular Army for a short period we would like to do it and get our training with the Regulars."

Senator THOMAS. I suppose that would be possible, would it not, after the Mexican situation is wound up?

Gen. WOOD. I hope eventually it will come out in that way. Senator THOMAS. Do you think the establishment of the $30 per month pay would prove much of an inducement?

Gen. WOOD. You would probably get some more men, but I think it would be a national misfortune to do it.

Senator THOMAS. My question is prompted by the assertion that former Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Fisher, made this morning, that the increase of pay to that sum would, in the opinion of some officials to whom he had conversed-whose opinions were given and very properly, I think-would so increase the enlistments as to give the Army many more men than it really needed.

Gen. WOOD. You can buy men. It is simply a matter of price; but it's a bad policy.

Senator THOMAS. Precisely, but would that be a sufficient price at which to buy a man-$30 a month?

Gen. WOOD. You would get more men than you get now. You would almost double the cost of the pay of the Army, and once having advanced that you never could get it back. Remember that in war you will have to pay that same price to untrained masses who volun

teer.

Senator THOMAS. Do you think the advantage is greater than the disadvantage of such a proposition?

Gen. WOOD. I think the disadvantage would outweigh the advantage many, many times. I believe if the American public voiced a real approval of its Army and emphasized the sacredness of the military service and put it where it belongs, you could not take care of the men who would want to come into the service. But when a decent, clean soldier goes to a hotel and can not get a room, or goes to a theater and the woman next to him moves off because he is a soldier, in uniform, when instead of being recognized as a member of an ancient and honorable profession, he is looked down on, you have a condition which has killed enthusiasm. This attitude is one of the strongest influences against the service to-day. ·

Senator BRADY. You think there ought to be the proper sentiment behind the soldier?

Gen. WOOD. Yes, sir. There should be.

Senator THOMAS. I fully recognize that fact and tried to cure it by the introduction of a measure for the protection of the uniform. I was only partially successful.

Gen. WOOD. It has done some good, sir. But return to the subject of a portion of public opinion concerning the soldier's occupation. The professional pacifist and peace-at-any-price man the nonresistant, who believes that nothing is worth defending is the man who has cultivated and built up strong sentiment against the soldier. Many of our better class of people have come to look upon the soldier as an idler because they have never given the matter of his occupation and duties serious attention. This is due largely to the fact that we have never met the issue squarely in this country, and instead of demanding universal service we have left military service to volunteers. This failing, we have gone to the bounty or the draft. During the Civil War we drafted generally after the fall of 1862. To meet the demands of the draft people of the community got together and in fact paid men to go to the front. So common was this practice that men at the front frequently spoke of the newcomers as costing so much a pound. "Here comes a bunch of seven and a half-a pound men." In other words, whatever the per capita price was. Service secured in this way resulted in an undue number of desertions, in bounty jumping, and other despicable things.

Senator THOMAS. There is no distinction between them and the men on the pension roll.

Gen. WOOD. Not a bit.

Senator BRADY. I was going to ask the same question that Senator Thomas has asked relative to the increase of pay. Ex-Secretary Fisher this morning was very emphatic in his statement relative to that matter, and in fact he used practically the same expression in reference to that which you did in reference to having the country behind the soldier, that if the wages or salaries allowed the soldiers was placed at $30 a month, we could not take care of the men that would be ready to enlist.

Gen. WOOD. Let us take it in another way. A few years ago I was in Switzerland. I met a lot of youngsters coming down the mountain one morning. I said, "Why are you in uniform? You are not on service." The men stopped and looked as though they would like to push me off the trail. After a moment's hesitation one of the party stepped to the front and said: "We are in uniform be

74663-17-9

cause we are proud of our uniforms. This is the uniform of the Swiss; we are always proud to wear it and we wear it on special occasions. There is a celebration down in the village which we are going to, and we are always glad to wear the uniform when there is any special occasion." I then asked: "Do you all receive military training?" This was almost too much for them. Another of the party stepped to the front and after a moment's hesitation said: "What do you mean by asking these questions? Do you not know there is not a woman in the village who would dance with a man if he did not take his military training, unless he was a cripple?"

Let us get a little of that spirit-the spirit that makes men proud of the uniform and glad to wear it. Now, as to pay. Fifteen dollars is the basic pay of the private soldier. This pay runs up to about $100 in the higher grades, and with it go clothing, food, shelter, medical attendance, and other benefits. It is much more liberal than it appears at first glance. Few people appreciate what the total value of Army pay is, and with it goes an insurance in case of accident and retired pay after 30 years' service.

Senator THOMAS. Perhaps it is fair to Mr. Fisher to say here that he coupled that statement with the further condition that an effort to secure the rudiments of a good trade or occupation should be also offered as a matter of civic training to those soldiers while in the Army.

Gen. WOOD. I do not think we should attempt the two under our proposed system of intensive training. We want to make this feature the important one, for we are wholly lacking in it, and many men will come from the farming, professional, and business classes. These men want their training as quickly as they can get it. They receive a kind of civic training too little in evidence in this country; they get it in the form of discipline, promptness, thoroughness, respect for the flag, the authorities, and the rights of others. This is the kind of civic training our youth need. The mixture of classes, races, and occupations at Plattsburg (and our training system will be but an extension and amplification of the Plattsburg system) tends to aid very greatly our work.

Take it, for instance, at Plattsburg. We had in one camp this year two bishops (one was unable to take the training), 18 clergymen of one church, 12 of another great church, and some 40 others representing other denominations. That was in one camp of 3,000 men. There were men from the ranks of labor and men from the poorer class-expenses of some paid by interested patriotic citizens. I helped many to come, as I had quite a large fund. We put them all into the same uniform, side by side-regardless of who they were; there was no bunching by class. They were assigned by fives to a company. They were then split up amongst different squads in the company. There was no such thing as recognition of social classes. or keeping certain men together. Probably the finest thing about. the camp was the pure democracy of that association.

Most of the men had not known each other before. Their estimate of each other was based simply upon efficiency and performance of duty. A man was sized up and valued according to his performance of the task before him. Distinctions as to wealth and social condition absolutely disappeared. They estimated each other from an entirely new standpoint-that measured by the performance of a common

duty. It was a fine elevating influence. For many of the men for the first time were consciously engaged in an effort to fit themselves for national service. The result was to fuse the various divers elements into one homogeneous mass infused with the idea of preparing themselves to better discharge their citizenship obligations from the soldier's side. This service all together served more than anything I have ever seen to wipe out the distinctions between the rich and the poor and the Jew and the Gentile. The scion of the old family and the son of the newcomer. It impressed upon all the sense of a common obligation to country.

Senator BRADY. You think a training camp such as Plattsburg is very beneficial, do you?

Gen. WOOD. I think it has been a voice to a slumbering people. I think it is the most hopeful thing I have seen.

Senator THOMAS. How many of these camps were in operation last summer?

Gen. WOOD. I will give you a general idea of the movement. There have been a number of camps. We started in 1913, the year before the war, and we had about 300 men, roughly. In 1914 we were just finishing up the second set of camps when war came. We had about 650. In 1915 we had about 3,000, and this year, from all over the country, about 17,000 or 18,000 men, and next year we are counting on about 60,000. The fine thing is that there is every class of men, all filled with the idea of universal service- service for the Nation. As the camps of 1913 were drawing to an end a movement was made to directly connect certain college presidents, who had shown great interest in the movement, with its further conduct through service as members of an advisory committee. This committee consisted of President Drinker, of Lehigh; President Lowell, of Harvard; President Hibben, of Princeton: President Hadley, of Yale; John Finley, at the head of the New York Educational Establishment; Gen. Nichols, of the Virginia Military Institute; President James, of the University of Illinois; President Hutchins, of Ann Arbor; President Denny, of Alabama; President Schurman, of Cornell; and President Wheeler, of California. Since then other college presidents have been added to the number: President Knight, of the University of the South: the director of the Catholic University in Washington; President Garfield, of Williams; and this year other college presidents representing the Rocky Mountain and southwestern colleges will be added.

This advisory body has been of tremendous service in building up the camps through indorsing the movement throughout the college world. They have kept in close touch with the camps and have visited them and made careful inspections. In a word, they stand as sponsors for the good work of the camp, the value of the training, and the idea it represents. There is a general movement toward universal service in the universities. Charles W. Eliot, president emeritus of Harvard, after most careful consideration of this subject, has just come out for universal training not only as a matter of national defense, but for the betterment of the men economically and from the standpoint of citizenship. Universal training represents an extension of the Plattsburg idea. There will be no difficulty whatever in putting it in force. Not over one-half of our men are fit to take it physically. I don't think the expense is going to be in

any way prohibitive. Transportation will be one of the big features. Transportation lines on land and sea should be called upon to play their part in the game in this matter of national defense, and special rates should be secured for those who attend training camps. They are preparing themselves to defend the nation, and incidentally the property and lives of all under the flag. All transportation during the period of training should be at a special minimum rate, and I believe the transportation companies will do it. If not, Congress can take steps to meet the situation.

Senator BRADY. Do you not believe that if we are going to adopt this method of military training, or universal military training, that the American public will first have to be educated up to what it really means before it will indorse it, or do you think they are ready to indorse it at this time?

Gen. WOOD. I believe they will indorse it to-day, if presented to them properly. I have just come from St. Louis where I went to take up the question of summer camps next year, and the one thing that brought the people to their feet was a mention of universal service. It comes from the miner and the ranks of labor just as readily as from the richer classes. If you get a lot of workmen together and talk universal service, and let it be understood that by universal service you mean service under which no man, however wealthy, can buy a substitute, you will hear just one murmer from the crowd, "We are with you if you will give us real universal service. We are willing to serve the country, as willing as any one to do our full duty, but we do not want any more of this Civil War buying-substitute business." This is their attitude as I see it. They are afraid they will get some system by which the rich man can put up enough money to buy a substitute. Labor is with you, I'm sure, when you can make it absolutely clear that it is universal service for all, rich and poor. Our armies have always been filled very largely from the ranks of labor and it is an insult to the laboring man to assume that he has neither the patriotism nor intelligence to appreciate the necessity of national defense. What he wants in service is real democracy; a share and share alike, shoulder to shoulder proposition. A system under which each man who is physically fit must pay his part of the service tax in war by actual service, and not through buying another man to do it for him.

Senator BRADY. When you make every man bear his responsibility and burden?

Gen. Wood. Absolutely. I do not believe you will have any serious trouble. I went over the Department of the East last year and was talking summer camps, I think, on about 160 or 170 occasions, at colleges, at mass meetings, at places like Lawrence, Mass., where they have 51 nationalities. I never heard an objection to universal service, when its conditions were properly explained. I talked to the district leaders in New York of different political creeds with the idea of putting before them universal service, in order to see what they thought of it. They are for it if you will give them real universal service. I think you will find that the leaders of labor are for it. They recognize the straight democracy of it. There is no way of getting away from that fact. It is the equality of obligation accompanying equality of opportunity and privilege. It is the very foundation on which the Republic rests and no one can go back of that proposition unless he does not intend to play the game.