New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-01-10
Nonsense About Consc-iption,

Nonsense About Consc-iption,
There is one thing about the anti-con-
scription campaign in Great Britain
which few people in other countries can
understand. That is the insistence by the
British labor unions and other opponents
of compulsory military service that con-
scription is wrong in principle and that it
involves an invasion Of the personal lib
critics Of the citizen.
The obligation Of a subject or citizen
10 serve his country in time Of war ia one
Of the oldest and most universal OF civic
duties. Il has been accepted as an axiom
under the freest ns well as under the
most despotic governments that every in
dividual capable Of bearing arms owes
military service TO the state in time Of
need. II the state can take property
through the taxing power for national
defence. it can with equal right demand
personal service through CONSUMPTION.
Opposition to compulsory service based
on mere expediency is Ineligible. II has
been argued by competent military critics
in Great Britain that CONSUMPTION at any
time during the first year Of the war
would have been mistake. II was
urged that the voluntary system was fur
nishing as many men as the government
could equip, train and use. and that no
real military purpose could have been
served by calling out the inferior raw
material which had failed 70 volunteer.
IT has also been suggested that prece-
dent. which counts so much in Great Brit
ain, was against universal service, and
that from a political point of view com
pulsion would be unwise. Domestic polit-
zeal exigencies have led to the exclusion
OF ireland from the scope Of the conscrip-
ton act But this exclusion is based on
expediency pure and simple. The princi-
pic Of universal compulsory service in
time Of war remains unaffected by such
concessions, and it Is against recogni-
ton Of this principle that the British La
Dor Congress has been making its most
clamorous protest.
Such q protest Is not IN any sense a
manifestation Of the democratic spirit or
Of devotion to personal freedom. as de-
mocracies understand personal freedom.
In our Civil War the South called every
nan to the front Jefferson Davis was &C
cused by the Southern critics Of robbng
the cradle and the grave. The Federal
government also resorted TO the draft, as
it had perfect night 10 do. All male cit
liens Of military age In the United States
who are not already in military service are
included by our laws In the unorganized
militia. Universal service does not con-
\hlct in any way with our ideas Of democ-
racy Nor does It conflict with the ideas
% democracies still more advanced than
ours-of the type % Australia and Swift
zerland. Both these countries practise
compulsory service. They regard il as a
commonplace that q citizen owes military
duty 10 the commonwealth.
The principle Of universal service is, in
fact, e corollary Of the principle Of dem
ocratic equality. II all have equal rights,
al must have equal obligations. The
leaders Of tho French Revolution called
Che nation TO arms in the name Of equal
ity. To permit "a citizen to say whether
he vii! defend the state or not when sum
moned 10 do so IS 70 deny equality Of
duty. II is 20 infect patriotism With
selfshness-to permit the less willing to
thrust an unequal burden or the more
willing. The contention Of the British
trade unions is thus a Reputation Of
democratic theory. II IS an outgrowth
not Of the spirit Of democracy but Of the
shirt Of individualism degenerating into
anarchism. Americans simply cannot
understand the reasons given by the Brit
ish labor unions for resisting conscription.
II this country were faced by the neces-
sity Of calling all men Of military age 70
arms, no patriotic American would dccry
such a step as an invasion Of individual
liberties. We know chat service is an OBJ
legation of citizenship-a duty that every
one owes the nation. To what extent
CONSUMPTION should be used is always a
question Of expediency. to be decided by
the proper Authorities But it would be