Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1917-01-12

giyo up their regular civilian income
| Many of those reported they lost their
| positions ana were unable 10 get them
back when the men were mustered
ont,
EighN-four per cent of those who
were questioned replied mo- when
asked II they Intended 90 enlist again.
/ A great number declared "omphati-
c"lly fur universal scrvico' and as.
/ serted they would not do military
'rr'ic" hono'foith under any other
/ system
ln obtaining economic Information
me committee sent queries TO en-.
uiuN'rs as We'll as 20 the men
6uardsmcu' the report SAYS In this
connection. told about their pecuni.
aIN LOSSES ana the suffering caused
lN their dependents. and employers
tod OF tho effect - the mobilization
'L '"' mess, ana gave their conception
oi sound national military policy"
] %" ihcis established. the report SAYS.
may De stated under two heads. eco.
n"nio and military Regardiug tho
economic slide. 10 is stated
Hardship Ia Families.
'i} bringing into service men with
hcn'N family Hud business rosponsi-
hilltics. altho there was available I'm
number Of unmarried men who had
not attained u high economic value.
thc mobilization showed that the ma
i"ntl guard scheme of defense WAS
economically unsouud Il caused
widespread distress 10 the dependents
oi guWrdsmcu, and II took mature
men nom positions where they had
established their usefulness 10 com
mcrco ana industry The burden II
threw upon employers was inequitably
distributed, ln that some employers
continued % pay their men during
service" while others cut of their
mems pay Under the prevailing sys-
tenn uf voluntary enlistment. II was
not possible to select from the ma
ti"nal guard. either before the mobili-
zation OF afterwards. the class OF men
most easily 10 be spared for military
duty"
~ tho military aspect. the report
continues.
The mobilization showed that the
national guard was not to bee depend
cnt upon for defense" Reports of
the secretary ~ war. and ~ bureaus
Of the war department. are citcd I'm
support Of this finding
statistics based on inquiry among
employers show that OF i3l who cN-
pressed opinions upon military prcpa-
ration In general 429 favored II and
two opposed IL or 3Gg who EXPRESSED
opinions ON universal service. 1856 ia
Nured II and l3 opposed H. only
-four employers favored ontinuance
OF the present national guard system
the report says. and two Of these be
licNed also In universal service. Tho
report continues:
Next 10 the declaration for univcr-
sal service, the most striking feature
OF the employers replies was the en-
phasis they placed upon the need Of
an equal distribution OF burden They
said they were ready to give time Off
to their men FOR training: but they
wanted the training to be governed
by some national scheme under which
all employers AS well as all men of
military age, would fare alike
Lack of Equipment.
Tho replies from the 2.4OO New
York guardsmcn. the report says. in
dicate that 1T was not rough military
NE they objected to. but the Unequal
ity ~ treatment.
The equipment system. the com
mittcc found "fcll down not only be-
cause the federal government fniled
10 supply war strength equipment
promptly, but also because the ma
tiunal guard organizations did not
haNc-aS they were required to have
their peace strength equipment"
The guard Of New York was held to
have been better equipped than those
of most other states. altho in itself
mot anywhere near ready
Discussing, In conclusion, the need
Of defense. the committee alludcs to
the new and quite unforeseen status
that the great changes of the last few
years have forced upon the United
states. Isolation no longer protects
the country. II is said. and 1T is moth
ing moro than common prudence"
that the nation should prepare To pro-
tcct itself.