New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-01-24
PATCHING THE GUARD

% the Editor of The Tribune.

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: Careful perusal Of the letters OF
General Organ and "Major. N. G. U. 81 APP
pearing IN your columns, leads ono 10 make
the following observations:
II seems TO me that both letters proceed
upon the wrong basis. II is TO be presumed
that what is wanted in the country is ade-
quate military preparation, and that the
method Of accomplishing that result is to
be chosen irrespective Of past practices or
existing prejudces. II in order to secure
the best results we must throw into the
wastebasket every ancient theory, and II we
must reorganize from top TO bottom, there Is
no reason for doing otherwise
Both General Organ and "Major" admit
defects in the present system, but urge amend
ments by which they believe it can be made
TO work efficiently. Now, why should we fall
back on a patchwork system at all unless it Is
the best that can be had? Neither CORE
spondent shows that it is the best but mere
ly shows that in his opinion IT can be made
to do we'll enough. What the country needs
is adequate preparation, and it must con-
slider the situation with single view to the
best method of getting it. The public is also
entitled to have it at the least possible ex-
pense consistent with an absolutely efficient
preparation. Our present method or any
adaptation of it is certainly most expensive,
and many will take issue with General
Organ as TO the possibility Of making it eff
fective by any amendments whatsoever.
It involves divided control. General Upton,
in his Military Policy of the United States"
a book with which both General Organ and
Major" are familiar no doubt, points out with
absolute clesrness the defects of that division
Of authority and responsibility. Nothing that
General Organ suggests can cure these de-
fects completely. General Organ knows that
the states cannot be coerced into a proper
performance OF their duties by the Federal
government. lie knows that some states have
not complied with the existing Federal legs-
laton as 70 the National Guard, and that their
attitude has been, "What are you going to
do about it?" The only remedy is to with
hold appropriations, but if the state should
decide to let the appropriation go and pro-
coed on its way without it, how can the gov
eminent compel it to maintain National
Guard of standard efficiency?
Both letters indulge in comparisons be
tween the efficiency Of the New York National
Guard AMI the regular army. In no other
country would it be seriously urged that the
man who gives his whole time and attention
10 q difficult profession is less efficient than
the man with whom the profession is side
issue and who gives il a relatively small
portion Of his time and attention. However,
il we admit that the New York Guard is in
all respects superior 10 the regular army, il
proves nothing I think it is usually con-
eeded that the New York Guard is the most
efficient of the National Guard organizations
chain only has The strength Of its weakest
link and not that of the strongest. Both
correspondents are we'll aware that certain
states can not or will not maintain their
organizations at as high state Of efficiency
as that maintained by the richest state IN
the Union.
There are two theories of military prep
aration. One rests on the belief In a perma-
nent army Of trained mercenaries, TO be re-
inforced in times of war by more or less
highly trained body Of reserves This coun-
try is now about the only one which clings
to this idea. The other theory is that Of
the "nation in arms" This may involve a
very considerable training, as in the Prussian
system or a less complete training as IN the
Swiss or Australian system, but it relies on
the obligation of every citizen to serve, and
the whole body of citizens becomes, at least
theoretically and potentially, the army
Amend as you will the present system &C
cordng to General Organs suggestions, it
can never get away from the first theory
the theory that has been rejected by every
great nation but our own. We must reject
il also, but the question is whether we shall
do so before we are compelled 70 do IL by an
appalling disaster. +. b.
New York, Jan. II. 1917.