claim outside of our own territory? Are we claiming or are we likely to claim any rights or privileges that are likely to be challenged by other nations? What are the foundations for such claims? Are they sound in principle and in law? How important to us is their assertion if challenged? Are they important enough to fight for? Are there other remedies than war available to us if they are challenged? What are they? Is our claim similar in character to that of other nations, and should we take steps to unite all nations who are interested in the same essential claim for its defense against a possible aggressor? Should we unite North and South America in the defense of our common interests, and if this seems desirable, why should we draw an artificial line excluding agreements with European nations in matters where our common interests are as clear as, or clearer than, our Pan-American interests?

We find, however, this constant tendency on the part of men who advocate extreme military preparation to believe that war is the normal, the necessary and inevitable resort to which we must come for the adjustment of international differences. They minimize every other means of avoiding or adjusting differences. They cast discredit upon all these other things as impracticable and therefore they turn their attention chiefly to methods of creating a military force by which we can protect ourselves or assert our rights.

Now, it seems to me that is a fundamental error, and with it goes the folly of all follies, and that is the assumption that the United States is different from other nations; that somehow human nature in the United States is different from human nature elsewhere; that things which create militarism elsewhere will not even tend to create militarism here. The advocates of an extreme "preparedness' point to a condition of things in the past when we have had little of a military character in our governmental organization and policies as proof that because we have not had a militaristic sentiment, and because we do not have it now, that therefore we will not have it under a fundamentally changed state of affairs.

As I said, it seems to me that is the supreme folly. It is natural for a military officer to be sure that military training and military power will not breed militaristic habits of mind. He is conscious. of no militaristic tendency in himself and sees no danger of militarism in others.

Now, I want to discuss the particular suggestion that you have before you at this time, namely, universal military service.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you differentiate between service and training? Mr. FISHER. I do. Perhaps my use of the word "service" in the previous sentence was not an accurate as it should have been, and I thank you for calling my attention to it. I do believe that there is a fundamental difference between universal military service, or liability for military service, and universal military training. It is our present law, and it is a sound theory, that the liability to military service shall be universal; that in time of need every man in the country must take his place in the ranks, if need be; and whenever we have a conflict which can not be taken care of by the voluntary enlistment of men who wish to go in because of their love for adventure and that fondness for arms, that willingness to go in for a fight which always prompts a considerable number of men in a community to enlist gladly-then I think we should resort to some form of conscription rather than rely on exhortation to voluntary service which takes into our army the best men of our nation and leaves behind so many of the poorer ones. I believe that the sons of the extremely rich and the sons of those who are down at the bottom should fight along with

the sons of the middle classes, who after all naturally form the bulk of those who enlist for voluntary service.

But that seems to me to be a radically different proposition from an obligation to universal military training. I appreciate fully that the argument proceeds along this line-that those who say there may be a possible call for universal military service claim that it necessarily follows that we ought to prepare the great body of the public so that they may perform military service under the most favorable conditions to them and to the country.

But it seems to me this does not necessarily follow. These things after all are intensely practical questions. We have police officers who preserve order and protect life and property, although theoretically it is your duty and mine to perform this function, the law being that we may be called upon to do it at any time if the police are not adequate. But we do not train each other for this emergency. We do not have universal training for the performance of police duty. We have police who are able to perform that function. Exactly the same principle applies in that case as in the other. It is a question of wise expediency, which is, after all, as you gentlemen appreciate thoroughly, the real test of statesmanship.

Now, let us look at it for a moment from the other point of view. As I was saying, I have the greatest appreciation of the sincerity of the advocacy of universal military training or service by so many public-spirited men who are convinced that that is the way out, that that is the necessary way out for this country, and that it is a desirable way out. Of course, I appreciate the fact that fighting with those men in the cause of universal military training are men who are selfishly interested, men who are financially interested; they are also men whose predilictions are for military methods. There are men who believe in exploitation, in the expansion of trade, and even in the extension of national territory, and in universal military training as an aid to these things. There are a good many men who, from love of adventure or from natural predisposition, regard the use of force as necessary and quite proper to be adopted in the settlement of disputes whether between individuals or between nations.

Look at the men of this country who have enlisted in the war on the other side. There can be no doubt that very many of those men are convinced that they are fighting for the cause of civilization, but you and I know that many of the men who go across are after all men who are inspired by the love of adventure, who have a zest for the danger zone that appeals to so many people especially in a country like ours, which has only recently passed out of the pioneer stage, the stage of direct personal contact with the forces of nature and the use of physical means to achieve results.

What do we mean by universal military training? There seems to be great difference of opinion upon that subject. Is it really intended that the training shall be universal? I hear so frequently the argument that the universality of it is the great thing, that it has a tendency to democratize the country, that it will bring up the standard of general physical development and heatlhfulness in the country, and that everyone is to be trained who is not clearly debarred by physical defects, or other causes but when we turn to the estimates of the cost of these things, to the difficulties in producing

results of that kind, immediately we find that the priciple of universality is abandoned. They say, "We are going to select a certain number of men who will really be trained as soldiers. It is not really going to be universal beyond the preliminary stages."

Do they mean universal military training? Is it proposed really to train the young men of America so that when they come out they will be soldiers? Almost universally I find a disclaimer of any such purpose. It is not intended to train them so that they will be thoroughly trained soldiers. That is an impracticability. I find that practically all of the military men with whom I come in contact are agreed upon that latter point. There is practically, as far as I am able to find, no disagreement on the proposition that any system of military training that we can hope to establish in this country will not give us a first line of defense. It is not hoped that it will do it. Take Senator Chamberlain's bill-I am quite sure that he would not claim that for it. I have not had the opportunity to see the other measures to which he refers, but Senator Chamberlain's bill is, I assume, only what you might call a start. It provides in section 3that the training of the members of the Citizen Cadet Corps shall be divided into three periods, as follows:

(a) The first period shall commence on the first day of July in the year in which the persons liable reach the age of twelve years and shall continue for two years. This training shall consist of not less than ninety hours in each year, terminating on the thirtieth day of June, and shall be devoted during this period to calisthenics and such other physical and military instruction, without arms, as may be prescribed: Provided, That in the case of persons who reach the age of thirteen years in the year in which this act becomes effective, the training for this class of persons shall commence on the first day of July of that year and continue for one year.

Now, the training in the second period shall begin, etc., and continue two years. The training during this period shall not be less than 90 hours in each year, ending the 30th day of June, and shall include military training with the rifle, including gallery practice. That is to say, that military training with the rifle is to be included within the 90 hours, so far as the language of the bill is concerned. Then there is a provision about the age of 15. Then

(e) The training in the third period shall begin on the first day of July in the year in which the persons liable reach the age of sixteen years and shall continue for two years. The training during this period shall be not less than ninety hours, and in addition thereto ten whole days in camp in each year, ending the thirtieth day of June. The training during this period shall include field exercises and target practice, in addition to other training that may be prescribed: Provided, That in the case of persons who reach the age of seventeen years in the year in which this act becomes effective the training shall begin on the first day of July in that year and continue for one year.

SEC. 4. That the training for the members of the Citizen Army shall be not less than one hundred and twenty hours, or twenty whole days, in each year, commencing on the first day of July and ending on the following thirtieth day of June, and shall continue for six years, and not less than ten whole days in each year shall be in camp of continuous training."

Then there is a provision here, having whole-day drills of not lest than six hours, or half-day drills of not less than three hours. That is the system which Senator Chamberlain's bill proposes.

Well, now, I am quite sure that the Senator would not claim that that would turn out a soldier. I know that my friends in the Army would not admit it, and if I am right in that deduction, then I am right in this proposition: That universal military training, looked at now from the point of view of military preparedness, will in no way

take the place of the first line of defense; and that, gentlemen, is my first objection to the pending measures with regard to universal military service. In my judgment, the advocacy of these measures is diverting attention from what seems to me the important issue before the country, namely, the preparation of a real first line of defense that will be adequate in the event of this possibility of an invasion of our shores. We are told by all of the military authorities that if we have a trained army of half a million men that we will have a first line of defense which will be appropriate to our needs, so far as that is concerned, and that we will not have any more than we need-that that is the essential thing. Now, personally, I am in entire accord with that opinion, and I will make it clear, because I want my position toward this matter distinctly understood. I believe that that is the first duty of the United States, and I am sure that in the Army you will find abundant support for that conviction. We are preparing, gentlemen, upon the hypothesis that we are really in danger of attack; that there is a possibility of attack; that growing out of this war, or as a result of it, somebody who is disappointed abroad—the unsuccessful party, resentful at defeat-seeing in this country the opportunity for recoupment, will organize a predatory expedition against this country; that some power in Europe, antagonistic to our assertion of rights under the Monroe Doctrine or otherwise, is going to attack us for some reason, and that we are resting without preparation to meet such an attack on the shore line.

We all know what the recent Army bill was. We know that it was a step in advance, particularly in the recognition of certain principles, but it does not accomplish the purpose that we have in mind; it does not accomplish what the military authorities all tell us, within their own proper expert field, is an absolute essential. Now, that is the first thing for us to do, and if it be possible to devise a plan under which we can secure an Army of half a million trained men without jeopardy to the country, without creating a militaristic feeling, keeping the large percentage of that Army so they will be in fact a citizen soldiery, we will have accomplished the most important thing for military defense in a real way and in a right way. Now, I believe that that can be done. I believe that if you will take the principles that you have already embodied in your Army legislation, and really apply them logically to the situation, that you will get exactly the results you ought to have. We should do this by passing men through the Regular Army, as rapidly as they can be adequately trained, into a citizen reserve, available for service, under obligation to come to the colors, whenever they are needed. We do not need to increase our standing Army one man. We can determine how many men we think ought to be in the standing Army. Let us assume, for the purpose if discussion, it is one hundred and fifty or two hundred thousand, and that we pass through the training of the Army-through the Regular Army-100,000 men a year-whatever you gentlemen think is proper to provide-and that those men come out of the service in the course of a year or eighteen months or two years, whatever the necessary time is to give them adequate training, and then pass right out into the body of the country, into the mass of the citizenship, subject to call.

The CHAIRMAN. That is under a voluntary enlistment system?

Mr. FISHER. That is under a voluntary enlistment system. The CHAIRMAN. You will be getting the same class of young men that enlist now, but will you get the kind you say ought to enlist? Mr. FISHER. First, I do not believe that we would get the class of men that you speak of. One trouble with the present system, even under the law last passed, is that so large a percentage of the men who enlist in the Regular Army are caught on the rebound from a debauch or some experience which has discouraged them. Our army officers say they do not get the kind of material they ought to have, and they complain, too, in addition to that, that there is a feeling in the Army that the present system of enlistment can not succeed. There is even in some quarters no great reluctance to report that the administration of our present system is a failure. There is also what seems alomst an eagerness to discredit a federalized National Guard as our second line of defense, because of the unsatisfactory results attained in mobilizing the militia on the Mexican border under unfavorable conditions, for many of which the Federal authorities were themselves responsible.

The CHAIRMAN. Even getting the class of men that you speak of, catching them on the rebound, as you say, would you consider that a dependable force in any sort of emergency?

Mr. FISHER. No, Senator; and I was coming to that. My theory of the difficulty with your present system of enlistment is just this: You are offering to the enlisted men nothing that is attractive. It takes a man who is enlisting on the rebound, or who has a strong predilection for military life, to go into the Army, under present conditions. In the first place, your scale of pay is too low. It involves a confession of industrial failure, on the face of it, and self-respecting men refuse to enlist in the Army under present conditions.

The CHAIRMAN. Yet we pay the highest pay to an enlisted man in the world.

Mr. FISHER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. It costs a thousand dollars per man-it is estimated-for every enlisted man we have in the Army now.

Mr. FISHER. I think that is one difficulty.

Senator THOMAS. Is not this country so thoroughly commercialized that militarism or enlistment in the Army, like everything else, is a matter of dollars and cents? If you want soldiers, you have got to pay high prices for them, and when prices rise, Congress has got to pay the wages of the employer.

Mr. FISHER. I have been told by excellent authority that an increase of the scale of pay to $30 a month would bring you all the recruits you can use. I do not know whether this is correct or not, but I give it to you for what it is worth.

Senator THOMAS. It is encouraging to me.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever figured out that the enlisted man, with his pay allowance and all, gets pretty near as much as most laboring men in this country?

Mr. FISHER. Yes, pretty nearly as much as a laboring man-pretty nearly as much as the lowest scale of wages-and it involves exactly what I have said. Assuming now he is not heart bent on enlisting in the Army; that there is not something in military service, per se, that appeals to him, he enlists under a system which, on the face of