The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-09-12
NATIONAL DEFENSE DAY

1o4NAA DAN D<A
 The national defense act, in accord ance with which provision is made for the military training of civilian units and the development of thoroughly trained officers in preparation for rapid organ ization and drilling of troops in emer- gency, received the hearty endorsement of Woodrow Wilson as being the plan best calculated at the same time to in- sure adequate readiness for national de- fense, while in no degree committing this nation to a militaristic program. There is wide gulf between such plan and militarism, in which military influ- ence is predominant in government. Mil itarism has never predominated in our government, neither when our armies have been swollen to their hugest pro- portions, nor when military commanders have occupied our highest executive rcs:- tion, as has been the case near dozen times, beginning with our first president who went into office almost at the head of an adoring army. It was not so un der General Washington, General Jack son, General Taylor, General Harrison, General Grant, Major General Hayes, Major General Garfield, Colonel Benja- min Harrison, Major Mckinley or Col onel Roosevelt.
 This occasion which has been set apart by the president for the mobiliza- tion of all our reserve forces, including the National Guard of each state, is in no wise inspired by militaristic impulse. nor can it properly be interpreted as designed to impress foreign countries. Indeed, as an event intended to impress foreigners, it would undoubtedly fail of it's purpose, for we have no panoply of war beyond that trained citizenry which desires to be prepared for war while pur- suing steadily and, it hopes, without fu ture interruption, the path of peace. Rather is it intended to impress the peo- pie of this country of the good sense and importance of our national defense pro- gram. Congress has always been slow to make appropriation for proper main- tenance even of that military and naval strength contemplated by statute. Never has it been more noticeably slow than in authorizing the funds necessary to make the national defense act a practicable and efficient protecting agency. It is believed that the people are already more inclined to criticize congress for unnec- essary penuriousness in this regard, than for extravaganza.
 According to Mir. Henry E. Armstrong in the New York Times Book Review: Looking back over the record, it seems ,mazing, now that at last we have a sci entific organization law on the statute book, how inert, slow and unintelligent congress has always been in suiting its legislation to the definition of a we'll balanced army" But the cure for con- gressional apathy may be found in the public attention and interest aroused by day set apart for peaceful mobiliza- tion of our civilian military strength, of our great second line of defense, the buffer between our regular army and the vast army of these without any train ing at all As MT. Armstrong further says: "The national defense act of 1920 is almost an ideal example of citizen army legislation, protective and practiea- ble, but depending upon public opinion for enforcement"
 Today, as the troops pass before the American people in review throughout this wide country, public opinion will be given an opportunity to crystalline in judgment upon this question and this policy There is no doubt about what the American people think. They are op- posed to large armies and navies; but their good sense approves of the intent of the national defense program. It re- mains for that sentiment to be directed to the end that congress shall feel it and recognize that further inattention will be met with unmistakable public dis approval.