Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1917-02-07

tionists. We borrowed it from Prus-
STA and England, countries that rec
ognized two classes of men, gentle
men and common men. And our sys
tenn today reflects faithfully the Soc
ial conditions which prevailed at that
time. The officers came from the
gentleman class, the enlisted men re-
present the common caste. 1t fitted
the European social structure of the
18th century, but it does not fit Am
erica.
American army law of the present
recognizes two separate and distinct
classes of men in the military serv-
ice. Those Of the one caste are for
hidden to associate on plane Of Soc
ial equality with members of the 9TH
er. Brothers or father and son in the
service, if one be an officer and the
other a private, may not eat at the
same table under penalty of court
martial The enlisted man signs an
oath which binds him for three years
whether he would remain or no. An
officer is free to quit when it pleases
him. After the age of ~ the private
no longer has the possibility of be-
coming an officer; his rise is stopped
by law.
Here are a few high points in Maj.
Hairless testimony:
Napoleon dropped destroyed caste
in the army because he saw that it
injured the business. The impulse to-
ward democracy which the French
Revolution gave the French army has
never reached the American regular
establishment from top to bottom.
~ octn in %
ate army nor in the citizen army OF
the United States during the COS.
1.-The thing above all others which
prevents men from entering the mill
tary service is the oath of enlistment
1t is an oath of bondage. Any other
employer who contracted with his
men on this basis would be guilty of
| peonage-a felony under the law of
the nation which practices it itself. In
my experience in recruiting l found
men profoundly unwilling to sub
scribe to such an oath.
unhappy or dissatisfied men are OF
no earthly use to military body. 1t
is a much better policy to let them go
and then Investigate the cause and
seek the remedy. l am absolutely op-
posed to universal service or cOmpul-
sorry service or any kind of service
except that which is rendered by will
ing men. l am opposed to it because
dumb, driven cattle cannot be taught
or trained. The Persians had univer-
sal service; the Greeks did not.
1T does not require years to train
a soldier-for fighting. The individ-
ual instruction is simple. It can be
done in weeks. With the proper ma
chinery developed it can be done In
less time than any army can Cross
the ocean.
If war should come now the most
serious problem would not be the lack
of numbers, the lack Of men able to
bear arms with credit to themselves.
The most serious problem would come
from the necessity Of working off the
dead wood which has risen to the top
of the military service by the passage
of time, the elimination of the men
who are entrenched by law but who
are unaccustomed to the habits of &C
tive armies. The development of new
leaders and the casting off of the old
were the real problems of the war OF
the CO.'S"
Mai. Hairless chief activity for two
years past has been promoting rifle
practice among civilians throughout
the country. It has been opposed as
tending to cut down enlistment. Maj.
Hairless comment in connection
Herewith is significant: "You can't op-
press a people who know how to
shoot"
Sid Evans.