of violence, as shown by these statistics, as compared with a country where the opposite system prevails. All I would claim for it would be that it at least would tend to show that the result of universal training was not a conspicuous regard for law and order.

Senator BRADY. Does the author explain why he does not use the same years?

Mr. FISHER. He does not, but I presume it was because he had a particular decade available in one case and in the other he had not. That is to say, the English are for the decade 1900-1910, and the German from 1897 to 1907, and he took those from the Home Statistical Office in Berlin. I know nothing beyond that.

There is much in the book with which I am entirely out of sympathy, but this appendix with the claimed official figures arrested my attention, and it seems to me to be in accord with human nature. We all know that the tendency of an arbitrary control, which the Army service essentially must be-without criticizing it in the slightest degree that there is a natural human reaction against it. If you come at it the other way around—if you can by any possibility teach the individual the value of voluntary cooperation, for the benefit of the community and show you are getting constructive results by it-if you can make our educational system a really efficient agency of physical, mental, and moral training, we certainly ought to get exactly the results on the physical side that the military man wants-far better results than we get now. We certainly ought also to teach the value of voluntary submission to authority. We ought to teach civic obligation. We ought to devise ways and means of doing this, not artificially, not as a by-product, but directly, if possible, and if this country can be brought to the belief that it is necessary, in order to do this thing, that we should have training out of school, in the camp, let us have it out of school and in the camp, and when our boys go into the camp, let us have them under ordered control, but let us have them work on constructive work, for the benefit of the State.

Former President Eliot, of Harvard, says:

The real work of a soldier is to dig in the ground with a pick and shovel, to carry a burden of about 50 pounds on long marches, to run very short distances carrying a similar burden, and to shoot accurately with a rifle; throw hand grenades, and use rapidly and well machine guns and artillery. Military drill in schools has no tendency to prepare boys to do the real work of a soldier. The Swiss do not begin to train their young men for their army until they are about 20 years of age, except that they encourage voluntary rifle clubs for practice in shooting.

Ought we not, then, to secure all that is of civic value in any sound system of universal military training without compelling millions of young men to drill, throw hand grenades, and use artillery? These things may be necessary for a finished soldier, but do we need millions of finished soldiers, and can we have them without the burdens and risks of a militarism which it has been as much our national policy to avoid as it has been to avoid entangling alliances? Without hand grenades and machine guns can we not get the essential physical and disciplinary foundations of a wise "preparedness" and avoid what seems to be an unnecessary tax on the money and the manhood of the Nation? Universal military training undoubtedly distributes the military burden, but does it not create the burden for the sake of distributing it? And will not the adoption of universal military

74663-17- -6

training by the United States at this particular time be seized upon by the militarists of other nations as a cause or an excuse for increasing or maintaining their own armaments?

Can you imagine what would happen to the road systems of this country, say, if every young man of 18 was required to give three months' time to work such as building roads and digging ditches? Can you imagine what an increase in the physical assets of this land there would be from that system? The buildings-buildings of the kind that these boys can be taught to build; the work done that stands undone to-day? And it is proposed we shall go off in the other direction and spend the necessary funds for artificial military training, when the chief result we expect to get out of it is only a little of the same result we would get if the boys were put to doing constructive work as a part of their civic education.

Some people say, "You can't get them interested in such things as that; you have got to have the flag, the drum, and the fife, and that sort of thing.

Now, those of you who have had actual experience with boysand I have had some-think back. I have had my boys and neighbor's boys on my place in the country with the fife and the drum, playing soldier, but if I should call that gang of boys and say, "Boys, let us come and build a shed in the back lot" or "let us tear down an old shed," the fife and drum would be thrown to the ground, and you would have to send a man out to find them. You offer to the normal, healthy boy, the opportunity to do constructive work, so he can see it developing under his hand, and it beats any artificial stimulus you can possibly apply. If you mean this thing seriously-if you are really talking about imposing a system of universal training on the youth of this country, let us have it of a civic character, distinctly civic and not distinctively military. Let us get out of it the incidental military advantages and by-products that we can justly expect to secure in that way.

The CHAIRMAN. Would Congress have any power to do it, under any constitutional provision, except as a military proposition?

Mr. FISHER. I do not know, Senator; but I do know this, that in a matter of this importance, if there is any question of the power of Congress, we ought to be able to get the necessary constitutional authority. If we are going to change, from the bottom up, going to have a system of compulsory universal military education ordered all over this country

The CHAIRMAN. You know there is a provision in the Constitution with reference to the organization of armies, etc., and the discipline and training of troops, but I do not know whether we would have any power over the educational facilities of the State.

The act of 1792,

Mr. FISHER. Well, I do not know either, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. You know this, I am sure. approved May 8, 1792, “An act more effectually to provide for the national defense," was really a compulsory military measure, and it remained in force until the Dick bill, passed in 1903.

Mr. FISHER. Yes; and it may be there is some technical point in what you say. Let us assume that the point is sound. Let us assume that it is clear that Congress has not on the face of the present Constitution got that power. Let me say to you that unless you get back of you enough public sentiment that would go so far as to

sustain a constitutional amendment, if that is a wise thing to do, in order to get the results, it is perfectly hopeless for you to attempt to apply your system of universal military training in the way you are proposing to do it throughout the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not sought to be applied in the public schools, in any of these bills.

Mr. FISHER. It amounts to the same thing. Are you going to send Army officers out all over the United States? Where are they going to get the 90 hours? Are not these instructors to come to the schools and have 20 minutes to use in connection with the drills? It is all to be worked out in cooperation with the school authorities. It can not be worked out in any other way.

The CHAIRMAN. Except in cooperation with the States.

Mr. FISHER. Surely; you have got to get right back to the same thing, unless local sentiment will support you, you can not put it into effect.

The CHAIRMAN. It is done through the land-grant colleges.

Mr. FISHER. Yes; but that is not universal training. Do we want this training to be universal? Are we going to get the advantages that are claimed for universal military training from the point of view of physical development and health? Are we going to teach this discipline? Are we going to have this democratic result? We are told it is the greatest school of democracy. Do you think you can make universal military training really democratic? How about the Negro in the South? Read in this book by Smith of what happens in the German barracks.

Don't be mislead on the theory that because we have not had anything of that kind in this country that we will not have it when you begin to apply the military system.

The CHAIRMAN. I would think you would have to take with a grain of salt anything that an Englishman wrote about a German.

Mr. FISHER. I would take it with a grain of salt. There is a lot of stuff there that can only be taken with a lot of salt. Nevertheless, you have got enough food for thought. Have you talked with Germans who have come to this country as to what their experience has been in the barracks' life and army life over there?

The CHAIRMAN. I think the best disciplined citizens we have in this country to-day are the Germans.

Mr. FISHER. The reason for it is they left that system in Germany. The CHAIRMAN. After they had served.

Mr. FISHER. You talk to the man who served. Of course, there are exceptions, but you will find any number of them who are of the opinion that as a school of democracy, the Germany army system is a complete failure that it is exactly the opposite. Remember the Zabern incident. Even in that country which has been pointed to as being a far better illustration of universal service than Germany, namely, France, we did have the Dreyfus case. I know no reason why we should assume that we are superior to other men, especially those Germans. We must remember that there are fifteen or twenty. million people with that same blood in them here.

If military training produces militarism in Germany, what reason. have to suppose it will not produce it here?

The CHAIRMAN. It has not created it in Switzerland, and I do not think it has done it in France.

Mr. FISHER. Let us take it for a moment in regard to Switzerland. Switzerland, of course, is the one case that is constantly pointed toa country in which every man knows that the only chance for national preservation is that every man in that country shall be trained to arms, and then nothing but the mountain passes will enable the force they can bring to bear to have any chance on earth to save the country. Now, you have a system of that sort put into effect, where that conviction permeates the whole population. Suppose you try to imagine the attempt to establish that system in the United States, in a country where, as soon as this war is over, in all probability the people will believe we are in less danger of military attacks than we ever have been in our history. In Switzerland, a small country, having personal acquaintance throughout and close observation, the public is all interested in it, and realizes that this thing means business and that it must be enforced successfully. How, in the United States, all over this broad land of ours, can we train our young men on any such system of universal training as that, unless the whole people are convinced that it is to meet a real and an imminent danger?

Why, there isn't anything more certain than that a system of that kind, which is felt to be artificial, which is felt not to have a relationship to the immediate needs of the Nation, will have dry-rot, and will become in and of itself a menace to the country. You have got to have the conviction that the thing which you are putting into effect is of vital importance to the country in order to make it a success.

The opportunities and probabilities of inefficiency and graft that we have seen in other branches of our service at certain critical periods in the past will not be a parallel to what might happen under such a system in this country, assuming that at the end of this war there is a genuine public conviction in the United States that it is really, after all, unnecessary that we should be inaugurating this thing at a time when it seems to be less required than at any other time in the past. Think of the opportunity for politics in it. Why, when we finished the Civil War the men who really had saved this Nation were organized into the Grand Army of the Republic, and you and I know, as we knew the rank and file of those men, how indifferent or even opposed they felt to much of the politics that went on in and through that organization. You and I know, nevertheless, that that organization absolutely controlled the politics of the United States for a generation, so that no man could be elected to the Presidency of the United States who had not passed through it. When you get a system of this sort the "Sons of the Universal Military Camp" will be organized, and there will be an effort to inaugurate a political society, based on the common experience of the camp, that will agitate for increased appropriations and other things for the benefit of the organization or of those who are leaders in it.

Now, I do not say you should not take the plunge, if it is necessary, but I do say that if you can get substantially the same result, from a military point of view, by adopting the other method-universal civic training that that, by all means, is the proper course to pursue.

I make these suggestions with the greatest deference to you, and, as I said before, simply because of the fact that I have a very intense interest in the subject.

Senator BRADY. During your remarks. Mr. Fisher, you discussed the matter of increasing the salaries of the soldiers?

Mr. FISHER. Yes.

Senator BRADY. Do you think that should be applied at the present time to the Regular Army?

Mr. FISHER. I do. sir. I think it is an outrage that we offer our regular soldiers the pay we offer.

Senator BRADY. And that if applied, the results would be along the lines as you suggest?

Mr. FISHER. I do, sir. I go further. I say if with that increase in pay, you offer a mechanical and industrial training that will be a real civic asset and will be of practical value to the men when they get out, I think you will very much increase the attractiveness of the enlistment. If you have a man go in so that he knows that when he serves a year or 18 months. he will then pass into a reserve, receiving perhaps some small compensation for the obligation to report for duty and physical examination at the nearest Army office from time to time, that you will have a trained force that will be a real first line of defense, and not a fake one, and that you will not lull this country into the false security that we are really able to defend ourselves or even to carry on aggressive war. when we have got nothing but an insufficient first line and a hopelessly inadequately trained body of so-called citizen soldiers.

The CHAIRMAN. What class of men would you get at $30 a month, for instance, which you suggested a while ago?

Mr. FISHER. I think you would get a very large number of the class of men who would like to become mechanics, who would like to be able to enter certain trades.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think that under that system very many men who had most at stake in this country would not serve at all?

Mr. FISHER. Not in the first instance. They serve, if they are called on. It seems to me to be essentially wasteful to compel a man who does not have to get his training in that way, and who has an opportunity for useful service in the community without going through this training, to go through it, if you can get men to whom the training itself will be an adequate compensation for the time that they give to it.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but you are putting these men all into the reserve. Aren't you letting out a lot of fellows that ought to be made to fight, because they have the most at stake?

Mr. FISHER. Is not that inevitable?

The CHAIRMAN. You talk about the democratization of the young man. I do not see how you can do it on that system.

Mr. FISHER. I do not claim that the Army, with its reserves, constitutes a democratization. I said to you in the beginning-I think Gen. Scott will concur with me that no plan of universal military service that has been presented will, in any way, be instrumental in getting the first line of defense that is needed. We must get democracy in some other way--and the best way is by developing and extending our system of civic and industrial education.

Senator BRADY. Do you not think that Senator Chamberlain's bill is a start in the right direction, properly handled, amended, and dis

cussed?