Mr. HORNBLOWER. Our regulations provide that an enlisted man of the Guard should not express an opinion on military questions and should not criticize superiors and volunteer opinions. We were muzzled, while these other gentlemen assumed to speak for us.

The CHAIRMAN. That is unfortunate. I did not know that we had not gotten the viewpoint of the men that did the work. That National Guard act was pretty nearly formulated through the instrumentality of the National Guard officers.

Mr. HORNBLOWER. I know it, but not the National Guard enlisted men.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your remedy for the situation?

Mr. HORNBLOWER. My remedy for the situation is to have this loyalty of the private to his troop developed and extended through a loyalty to the troop and the organization, to the loyalty of the citizen to the Nation, simply by calling upon each man to do his part, and then seeing that each man does it.

I have spoken scornfully and contempetuously as illustrating the mood we sometimes get into. Put yourselves in that position. Suppose you had spent the whole day in a temperature of 140, shoveling manure, and carrying baggage, and grooming horses, and you could see about you in many places instances of inefficiency above youwhere, for instance, you would be ordered to water your horse, and would go and stand in the sun for two hours, perhaps, merely to see a little trickling stream from the pipe because of insufficient water supply, instead of waiting to bring the horse out at the proper time-or your water supply would give out so that when you sweated your worst you could not get a drop to drink-and then you go back to your tent and happen to pick up a New York paper and you read: "R. Norris Williams put up a splendid exhibition on the tennis court to-day." "It is expected 70,000 persons will attend the YaleHarvard Game." "It is rumored Mr. Baruch made a hundred-thousand-dollar killing at the close of the market." "The dry goods and jewelry trade are booming." And then the troop clerk brings around a letter saying your boss is in great fear he may not be able to hold your place open, that he is doing his best, but running expenses are high and he has already had to take on another man. In this situation, how can you get up any enthusiasm about being a defender of these eight or ten million able bodied young men behind you at home?

Senator THOMAS. Suppose we engage in actual warfare with Mexico, of course the entire military strength of the United States presumably would not have to be exerted in such a conflict. We would have to select a part only of our military strength and send it' down there. Would not that same disparity exist even with universal military training?

Mr. HORNBLOWER. I think not.

Senator THOMAS. Would it not exist in all cases, except where the exigency was so great that all men would have to go to the front?

Mr. HORNBLOWER. I think not, if we had universal enrollment: in other words, not merely military training, but every citizen a member of the Army at all times, such as they have in Switzerland, when the authorities could select that group of men whom they chose to send, and they could be selected on the basis of being the most ap

74663-17-26

propriate men for the work, such as the younger men in the case of an expedition into Mexico. You could take the men of the class of 19, the 20-year-old men, and send them down there. Where the whole strength of the Nation is under orders the selection of the men who shall go can be made on a reasonable principle, and a sense of injustice could not possibly exist there, as it does in the case where the men are selected as a punishment for their patriotism almost, and where the men who are allowed to stay behind are the men who may be considered shirkers.

Senator THOMAS. I quite agree with you on having a more sensible method of selection, but I can not agree that that would abolish the notion of injustice which you have mentioned.

Mr. HORNBLOWER. Take the case of France to-day, another great democratic Republic. I do not suppose there is a single French soldier who goes into the thing with the spirit which these splendid young men in America went into it.

Senator THOMAS. But there the entire military strength of the Nation was absolutely necessary for its preservation, and in the case of France nothing of that kind could possibly exist.

Mr. HORNBLOWER. We deprive these men of that feeling of prejudice as long as we can make them feel that the whole military service of the Nation is willing and ready and bound to go if called upon. It is the feeling of simply being singled out to defend the other men who have stayed behind through choice and not because some one ordered them to remain behind. You never find any prejudice in a troop on the part of the men who are detailed to do a hard job while other men are detailed to do an easy one. You do not find them saying." This is not fair; everybody should be doing this particular hard job." Why? Because they realize that the men who are doing the easy job are not the men who have chosen it, but men who have been ordered to do it. In other words, you can get up a feeling of loyalty to men who are ready to do their part.

Senator THOMAS. I get letters from privates complaining of just that thing that they were discriminated against in their selection for these jobs of which you speak on the border.

Mr. HORNBLOWER. Of course, if they suspected there had been consistent discrimination, that might be; but suppose you had a troop of 100 men, and a certain hard job had to be done, and some of them were selected by a certain officer for that work; that would not bring out any feeling of resentment against the others who had been ordered to stay behind.

That loyalty to each other and to the troop was a wonderful education to me. There is nothing else in American life, that I know of, that is quite so inspiring as that contact with men who are throwing their heart into a thing for the sake of each other or for their troop. Can we not extend that to the whole United States? It is not a question of whether you are going to make the National Guard the second, the third, or the first line of defense. Let experts determine that. It is a question of whether you are going to give the National Guard a country that they will enjoy defending. It is a question of whether you are going to have a situation where they will have that same loyalty to every other American that every man in troop C of squadron A felt toward every other man in that troop. That is what is necessary, even if there were no

military dangers, for the sake of the manliness and the worthwhileness of it.

Let us give the National Guard a country such as Jefferson talked about in all of his messages, when he was impressing upon the American people the necessity for equality of burdens and of opportunities, and was talking constantly about the necessity for a trained citizen soldiery in which every man was a citizen soldier. Let us take the motto that has make France such an inspiring nation to-day-which they borrowed from us-"liberty, fraternity, equality." Let us take that motto and make that the rule in this matter, and let us give the National Guard a Nation such as Washingon dreamed of and talked of in every message that touched upon this subject-a Nation such as Lincoln died for. That is my feeling in this matter, and I have dwelt upon the question of feelings because, as I have stated, I am not an expert. All I can give you is the National Guardman's feeling about it.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Hornblower, for your statement to the committee.

STATEMENT OF ALLEN T. KLOTS, ESQ., NEW YORK CITY.

Mr. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, the next speaker will be Allen T. Klots, Esq., of New York City. Mr. Klots is one of the enlisted men in squadron A, who went to the border. I might say, in apology and in explanation of what Mr. Hornblower referred to in calling me "captain," that I was formerly connected with this organization some years ago, but I was not in the mobilization.

Mr. KLOTS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is Allen T. Klots: my address is No. 32 Liberty Street; my residence is No. 125 East Twenty-fourth Street, New York City.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you belong to this same squadron to which Mr. Hornblower has referred?

Mr. KLOTS. I did. My enlistment ran out in November, and I took my furlough to the "reserve" as it is now called. I was continuously on the border from the time the squadron went down until the middle of November.

I should like first to speak of some questions which were suggested here by one of you gentlemen. In the first place, let me touch upon the question of the National Guard being responsible for the present bill. As Mr. Hornblower said, it was not the enlisted men in the National Guard, but it was the officers, the men high in rank in the National Guard, who were responsible for the bill. In fact, one of the very reasons which influenced me to take my discharge, was in order that I might feel more free to protest against the present bill than I was when, as an enlisted man, it was more or less insubordination, or at least it was improper, to make any suggestions against it.

Senator BRADY. Do you refer to the present law and not to the present bill?•

Mr. KLOTS. Yes.

Senator BRADY. You do not refer to the bill now under consideration?

Mr. KLOTS. No. I refer to the present law.

I think there were a great many enlisted men in the guard—I am sure there are now, and I think there were at the time of the passage of the bill-who felt that the National Guard system had become an anachronism; that it was perfectly inadequate under present circumstances for a real citizen soldiery for various reasons; but they were not free to express themselves. I think there were a great many men higher in rank who felt the same way really, but for selfish reasons and because it was to their advantage to have a continuance of the present National Guard organization they so strongly supported the present law. That is very natural. A great many of those officers have spent a good part of their lives in working along military lines and in work in their organizations, and have finally attained positions well up in rank, positions which in some instances have remuneration and salaries attached to them. Certainly it is true under the present law when they are called into service. It becomes more or less of a vested interest which they have attained, and it is of course to their advantage to have such a system continued.

We enlisted men have great loyalty and great love for our organizations, as Mr. Hornblower said. It was really our loyalty to the organization which inspired us to take the oath more than anything else. But I think we are all willing to see those organizations go by the board, if necessary, sacrifice all the perfectly delightful relationships which are connected and associated with those organizations, if we can obtain in exchange some adequate measure of military preparedness. I think it is very important that the legislators shall be impressed with that idea, that the present law really was favored by the men high in rank in the National Guard, whereas it might not necessarily have been so highly favored by the enlisted men.

There was one other question which was asked, and I would like to add something to what Mr. Hornblower said in answer to it, and that was, in case of war with Mexico under universal military service, how would the selection be made as to the men who should go into Mexico? I have always felt that a war with Mexico at the present time would really be a war more for Mexico's benefit than for our own benefit. It seems to me if that is the case it should only be undertaken by a volunteer force who are willing to make the sacrifice. My idea of universal training and universal service is a service for national defense, for use when questions of real national emergency come up. Of course, it is possible that the Mexican situation. in its relation to the Monroe doctrine or under certain conditions, may be come a question of national emergency. I am not going to argue that. But it seems to me that universal service should be limited to service in cases of national emergency, and if a Mexican War is really a national emergency, then no outfit should feel wronged by its selection for service in that war. However, if it is not a national emergency, then I feel that it should be undertaken by a purely volunteer force.

As to my own experience on the border, the gentlemen preceding me have covered so completely the feeling which prevailed among the enlisted men as to the injustice of their selection, that it is hardly worth going over that again. The whole point, it seems to me, is simply that we enlisted in the National Guard from motives of being of some use to this country in case it was really in danger, in case our

homes or our cities or the National Government should be threatened with some real danger. We were willing to go to the border when the call came because it did look as if there was some danger of invasion or some sort of aggression, and there was no one else to handle the situation. We felt it was unjust that the present military situation was such that we had to be called upon, but since we were the only troops to be called upon, we were willing to go. Of course when we got there, as the other gentlemen said, and found things had quieted down and that we were put there merely waiting for some situation to develop, meanwhile patrolling the border, the annoyance and the feeling of injustice was aggravated.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you share the opinion of many experts that the presence of the National Guard there alone, the psychology of the situation, absolutely prevented a Mexican invasion?

Mr. KLOTS. I think it very likely did, sir. I think it was very effective in that way. I do not think we were effective in any other way, because the amount of actual patrolling, the amount of actual military work that we did there, was practically nil. I think it was entirely the psychological effect of the presence of a large force there which kept the border comparatively quiet during the summer. It seems to me that a solution of just such a question as came up this summer would be so simple under a system of universal training. Under a system of universal training there would always be a certain number of troops undergoing training at one time. Supposing they were only 200,000-I do not know the figures as to what it is estimated would be the number in active training at one time under a system of universal training, but suppose there were only 200,000 young men, whose turn had come to undergo the training. All you would have to do or all you would have had to do this past summer, would have been to have them take their training on the border, the training which they would undertake anyway, the training which every other young man in the country was required to take. It would not have involved any unusual hardships. It would not have involved their running any unusual risks. Their mere presence there was the only thing that was needed. They could have taken their training on the border and have been effective as an armed. force, and they would not have been doing any more than everyone else would have to do as his turn came under a system of universal training.

Senator BRADY. They would have been required to train some place?

Mr. KLOTS. Yes, sir; they would have been required to train some place for that year.

Senator BRADY. Instead of training at home or in some political district, they would have trained on the border?

Mr. KLOTS. Exactly, sir. It seems to me the situation which came up this summer is just one of the situations, perhaps, that would be so simply solved by a system of universal service.

I

I want, if possible, to give you a little more intimate knowledge of the attitude of the men who were down there this summer. was a corporal, and consequently the men whom I know best were the men in my squad. There were eight men in my squad besides myself. We lived together constantly in the same tent, all summer,