The discussion was grouped around a very definite question of fundamental policy, viz., whether the basis of military training in the United States ought, in the ultimate analysis, to be purely casual and "volunteer," or whether there should be introduced into it that element of compulsion and universality which comes from a recognition that a duty of participating adequately and effectively in the defense and preservation of the nation goes hand in hand with the right and duty of participating in the determination of its internal policies and domestic concerns. The pivot of the present discussion was made thus concrete, because of a desire that the discussion itself should be directed to concrete and tangible factors, rather than to the vague and undefined issue of advocacy or opposition to "preparedness." It was also the belief of many members of the Program Committee that, no matter what may be the form or scope of measures of army increase and reorganization within this year or the next, the nation will eventually be brought face to face with the question whether any considerable number of citizens can with safety be left wholly untrained and unready to perform with effectiveness any part of that task which all citizens may at almost any time be called upon to perform, to the utmost limits of patriotic devotion. Although the discussion was thus centered around the concrete issue whether military training should be left altogether casual and "volunteer" or whether some degree of training should be made general and obligatory, it was recognized that, in passing upon this question, many citizens feel disposed to inquire first as to the necessary objects of any increased attention to military matters-the question of the potential dangers, if any, against which preparation must fore-handedly be made, the question of the concrete problems of defense with which our military and naval experts would have to deal, should danger come from any source to be regarded as potential. These questions also are in considerable measure dealt with in this volume, notably in some of its earlier pages. In all respects, however, the Committee has sought to exclude mere rhetoric and resentment, as well as mis-information, and to present the messages of men who speak accurately and authoritatively.

Dr. Albert SHAW, editor of the American Review of Reviews since he founded it in 1891, student of governmental and economic systems in many countries, gave a most admirable introduction to the whole subject, as presiding officer of the opening session.

HENRY B. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky, spoke from the point of view of his experience as Assistant Secretary of War, and the extensive studies which he conducted in that post, under the leadership of Secretary Lindley M. Garrison, of New Jersey. It was commonly said in Washington that Mr. Breckinridge had acquired a greater mastery of military problems than is often gained by a civilian in the War Department.

WALTER L. FISHER was Secretary of War in President Taft's Cabinet. As one of the leaders of the Chicago Bar, he has been a deep student of the foreign relations of the United States. Probably more insistently and effectively than anyone else in the country, Mr. Fisher has emphasized the truth that to proceed intelligently to make military preparations, it is necessary first to determine for what is preparation to be made.

C. E. KNOEPPEL is an "efficiency engineer ", a member of the staff of the Engineering Magazine, and the author of a volume recently published under the title "Industrial Preparedness".

OSWALD GARRISON VILLARD, editorial writer and president of the New York Evening Post, author of monographs dealing with the German Imperial Court and Continental life, turned shafts of sarcasm and analysis upon "The Cure-all of Universal Military Service."

DR. MORITZ J. BONN, professor of political economy in the University of Munich, trained observer of social phenomena in many lands, presented most thoughtfully and open-mindedly "Some Economic and Political Aspects of General Training under the German Military System."

DR. ROBERT M. JOHNSTON is a lecturer in the United States War College, Assistant Professor of Modern History in Harvard University, and Editor of the authoritative Military History and Economist.

IRVING T. BUSH, president of the Bush Terminal Company and leader in large business enterprises, gave a business man's impressions of military training as an aid to individual effectiveness in the tasks of peace.

NEWTON D. BAKER, the gifted Secretary of War; CHARLES BENNETT SMITH, of Buffalo, N. Y., one of the most able and courageous of Democratic Congressmen; GEORGE E. CHAMBERLAIN, of Oregon, the hard-working Chairman of the Senate Committee on Military Affairs; and J. P. MILLER, JR., of the National Security

4

League's staff of experts, presented varying views as to the measures of army reorganization and military training put in force by the present Administration.

FREDERICK A. KUENZLI, of New Jersey, and DR. THEODORE A. CHRISTEN, of Cincinnati, Ohio, gave graphic and valuable accounts of the Swiss military system and its adaptability to American conditions; MAJOR E. N. JOHNSTON, of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, contributed what is probably the most informing study of the Australian system yet published; ERIC FISHER WOOD, who saw European military systems at work in the earlier stages of the Great War, gave vividly some of his impressions; Captain EWALD HECKER, of the German Army, narrated many of the features of the German system; and Colonel C. DEWITT WILLCOX, of the West Point Military Academy, gave from his ripe military scholarship an illuminating analysis of the French and English systems.

MATTHEW WOLL, one of the most clear-sighted of the leaders of American trades-unionism, and JOHN P. WHITE, the energetic head of the United Mine Workers, discussed universal training from the viewpoint of organized labor; GEORGE CREEL discussed it from the viewpoint of the democratic ideal; President ALEXANDER MEIKLEJOHN of Amherst College powerfully opposed compulsory military training, from the viewpoint of educational theory and practice; HERBERT QUICK presented some elements of a new volunteer system"; SAMUEL ROSENSOHN presented legal aspects of the general subject; and Professor MUNROE SMITH dealt with it historically.

President EDMUND JAMES of the University of Illinois outlined what the universities are doing and could do in the training of officers; Adjutant-General LOUIS W. STOTESBURY, of the New York National Guard, stirringly indicated the place of the State Militia in the national defense; Captain HALSTEAD DOREY of the "regular" Army told what the Plattsburg Camps are doing for military training; and Major-General LEONARD WOOD gave a striking narrative of the necessary elements of "National Training for Military Defense."

The foregoing commentary will indicate the diversity of the views and the authoritative character of the utterances which made up this notable symposium. They are published by the Academy solely in the hope that they will be of aid in the development of a reasoned and patriotic public opinion upon one of the most vigorously debated topics of today and to

morrow.

WILLIAM L. RANSOM.

NEW YORK CITY, AUGUST, 1916.

PROBLEMS OF THE COMMON DEFENSE'

DR. ALBERT SHAW

Editor of the American Review of Reviews; Vice-president of the Academy of Political Science

I

T has been the good fortune of this Academy, at stated intervals, to have made contributions, at once timely in interest and permanent in fundamental character, to the discussion of pending problems relating to governmental work or public policy. The academic viewpoint tolerates difference of opinion, but demands sincere regard for historical and scientific accuracy, and disinterested devotion to the cause of truth and progress.

For more than a year the people of the United States have been engaged, with evidently increasing interest and attention, in a broad and many-sided discussion of the question of national defense. This American question has arisen almost wholly in consequence of the world-wide disturbances created by the most colossal war of all history—a war in which fourteen nations are now engaged, and in which our immediate neighbor, the Dominion of Canada, occupying half of our continent of North America, is participating at great cost of men and resources. The people of the United States have no standing controversy with those of any other country. There have been incidental injuries and damages to all neutrals, in consequence of the methods and policies adopted by the belligerents in Europe. And we have suffered seriously by reason of the revolutionary chaos in Mexico.

But for none of these things would war on our part afford any conceivable remedy, and we are determined, in so far as lies within our power, to maintain the blessings of peace for ourselves and to promote by our influence the cause of peace and

1 Introductory address as presiding officer at the afternoon meeting of the Academy of Political Science, May 18, 1916.

justice throughout the world. We are committed, by many treaties and by countless acts and expressions, to the doctrine of legal rather than forcible adjustment of disputes between nations. We have no warlike party or element in the United States. We have no school of political thought that proposes to create strong armies and navies with a view to an enlargement of the power of this country or a widening of its imperial destinies.

Canada is in point of fact a self-governing American republic, and no one in the United States thinks of the annexation of Canada as a policy either avowed or concealed. A few people have conceived of our influence and authority as extending in the future to the Panama Canal. But nine out of ten of the socalled Interventionists, who do not wish to see our military forces withdrawn from Mexico, have in mind only the establishment of civil order and the restoration of industrial activity. They agree with the leaders of all our parties in not desiring to make conquest of Mexico.

There are, however, certain international obligations upon which we have entered. And there are large and responsible elements of public opinion that are definitely in favor of our having a navy strong enough to guarantee the completion of our work of tutelage in the Philippines, the maintenance of peace and order throughout the Pacific, and the upholding of those guarantees of protection that we have given to Cuba, the republic of Panama, and in general to the West Indies and Central America.

The people of the United States are intelligent and convinced idealists. They have supported the more advanced positions that have been discussed at the successive official conferences of the nations at The Hague. They look forward to a great reduction of navies by international agreement. They look upon the high seas as the domain of peaceful commerce, and regard it as an essential impertinence and nuisance that individual or allied nations should abuse the freedom of the seas by seizing the world's highways as a place for war upon each other and for preying upon the commerce of all mankind. It is the prevailing opinion in the United States that such conditions