Arizona republican., 1916-02-05
COL.. HARR|SFOR
 LIBERALIZATION
Adjutant General of Arizo- ma Approves Taking Over of Militia by Federal Gov ernment With Army as Teaching Force

While the National Guard AssOcia- tion is urging the liberalization of the National Guard of the United States and the officers of that organization are meeting with various snags in congressional committees, the plan is being generally advocated in the vari- ous state organizations. Adjutant General Harris is not the least active of the militia officers of the country who are anxious for the taking over of the National Guard by the federal gov ernment and the naming of regular ar my officers as a teaching force.
 What is the attitude of the Ma tional Guard of Arizona with reference to this question: Col. Harris was asked yesterday.
 Exactly that of the National Guard Association of New York replied the commanding officer of the guard of Arizona The National Guard of the United States is united on this ques- ton. No one knows better than the National Guard officer the difficulties under which he has had to work, no one better understands the limitations
 
 no one has shown the unsefish pat riotism that has been shown by the National Guard officer In the propo- sition of the National Guard Associa- tiOn that the National Guard be made a federal organization, there is no question of increased rank and in creased allowances for the officers. The statement has been made that un- der the present system there are A comma nders-in chief. Say rather 45 division commanders Congress can so limit the powers of the states that this will be the read situation. The National Guardsm2n enlists for federal service only, that he is required to do riot duty is something that he regrets, just as the regular army does not care for this duty. Some one must do it.
 The criticisms of the inefficiency of the guard do not look well coming from those who have had or asserted the right to control the guard for the past few years. l could criticize the regular army, but that criticism would he unfair The army has done the best that it oculd with the conditions that 1t had to meet So has the National Guard If the National Guard is given a fair compensation for the time it's men and officers give to it's service, if the national bureau that controls the guard is in charge of National Guards men and the guard does not make good, then it is fair to criticize it. Un- iii that is done it is unfair for paid nf ha rI orit cize it's voluntary service No one but a guardsman knows of the positions he loses and of the means it takes to be a guardsman.
 The continental army?
 ''1 am surprised that any student of the history of the United States would suggest such a scheme. Would you enlist for three years agreeing to give up your position for two months of each of those years and to work for 30 cents per day during that time? That is what it means. After each camp these members of the continental army turned loose to hunt for new positions The plan looks like a temporary scheme with little thought given to it. It offers many advantages that have never been offered to guard, however Give the guard fair play. l personally do not believe that we will ever have an adequate defence system until we have compulsory training Training said not service. Under that system our entire army system would have to be revised. officers with a few years service would go to the reserve and would have to earn a living until such time as their country needed them.
 Tt is apparent that some real system for national defence should be put in effect at once. If that system is toi be voluntary system, no one is so able to judge of the requirements and diff faculties of that system as the officers of the National Guard.
 We need the officers of the regular army for instructors just as they are detailed to the educational institutions of this country. They do not run the institutions, they instruct the students. They take their orders from the boards of these institutions Is theer any logical reason why army officers should not be detailed as instructors acting under the militia officers in control of the militia? This is one of the questions in which the National Guard Association of New York has decided they favor the detail Of officers of the regular army as an instructing force