Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1916-03-03
Plans Were Antagonistic.

the house and senate first met to con-
slider preparedness measures there
was feeling that it might be lmpos-
sible for any kind of compromise TO
be reached which would be satisfac-
tory to the members of both houses.
There were two Numerically opposite
plans proposed for the accomplish
ment of preparation through the ianu
forces of the United States. Seem
ingly the senate committee was de-
voted beyond divorce to plan for
continental army and seemingly the
house committee was just as devoted
to the cause of antagonism to contl-
mental army AS for the members OF
the house and senate generally, some
of them were divided among them
selves as to the merits of the two
plans. while others believed there
should be no preparedness at all. rms
was the situation when the subject
came UP for first consideration in the
two branches of congress.
AS soon as Secretary Garrison re-
signed it seemed that there was re-
newed feeling of confidence among the
Democrats in the house that their plan
to strengthen the National Guard ana
to ignore the proposal for continent
tai army was the more certain to sue
coed. 1t is well known, of course, that
President Wilson and his former Sec
rotary of war, Mr.. Garrison, were in
favor of the continental army plan. IN
one of the presidents letters to MT
Garrison at the time of the secretary
resignation he said he had confidence
in the patriotism and the judgment OF
the members of the committees OF
congress.
Wilson Willing to Yield.
This letter was taken to mean that
Mr. Wilson did not think that, because
he personally was favorable to the
continental army plan, it necessarily
followed that the house members were
wrong in standing for another plan.
In other words, it seemed to be MI.
Wilson's view that if the majority OF
his party in the house thought It's
plans were better than his plans he
should bow to the majority's judg-
ment
This intimation from Mr.. Wilson
seemed to be grateful to the leaders
Of his party in congress and especially
to the committee members. The house
members saw in what he said an init
nation that he would accept the plan
for the strengthening of the National
Guard if he had to, and would forego
if necessary his strong efforts to Sc
cure a continental army. Acting on
this supposition, the house leaders in
timated they would begin at once to
expedite preparedness legislation.
There seems to be some hope today
that the matter may be disposed OF
before the first week in April, but of
course the senate may be stumbling
block, for there is no rule in the SEN
ate such as there is in the house by
which debate could be shut off at any
given time.
Regulars Oppose Militia Bill.
Nearly all the army officers of high
rank are opposed to the measure
which would make the National Guard
the chief line of reserve strength of
the United States forces 1t must not
be understood that the army opposes
the militia because it thinks that the
guardsmen cannot give good service.
The army would prefer strong militia
to continental army, so called, and
would prefer it because the militiamen
are trained, are virtually constantly
under arms and know at least the pre-
liminaries of drill, discipline and field
service.
The real reason why the army Off
GERS oppose the proposed militia
strengthening legislation as chief
part of preparedness is because they
believe the Constitution of the United
States stands in the way of giving to
the United States government full con-
troll of the National Guard. In other
words, the army officers would prefer
the militia as a real reserve if they
were certain that the federal govern
ment could control the state troops in
all matters necessary for the good of
the armed service of the country, pro
V1ded war were TO come.
What Its Advocates Say.
National Guardsmen who are in
Washington and the members of con-
gress who prefer the strengthening of
the militia to any other plan for pre-
paredness of the land forces, say the
Constitution of the United States is
specific only along certain prohibitive
lines, and that congress can legislate
so as to make the National Guard
forces virtually a part of the govern
ment's army, and that those things
which the national government cannot
do are immaterial to the case. The
people will have to study both sides
of this matter before making up their
minds as to whether the army experts
are right or whether the National