Evening star., 1938-12-09
Opposes the Ludlow
Referendum on War
Former Army Officer Urges
Adoption Of Less Drastic
Amendment.

ing war on foreign soil. This writer
believes they should not, but disagrees
with the method Of preventing 1t as pro-
posed in the Ludlow resolution.
Representative Louis Ludlow proposes
to amend the Constitution. So far, so
good. But his amendment would put
the question Of entering any foreign war,
except in case Of invasion, before the
whole people directly through a national
referendum. Such method takes from
our representatives In Congress the
power Of declaring war, and substitutes
a plebiscite-direct mass action.
This method combines two aims, not
one; is awkward, confusing too compre-
hensive and dangerous for obtaining
what is a proper objective. What Mr..
Ludlow no doubt really desires Is to pre-
vent the export of conscripted Americans
to fight in other lands, perhaps out Of
control Of our own Government, and
under foreign command.
The grounds for objection to shipping
American conscripts abroad are excellent
and correct, historically, legally and from
the viewpoint Of our traditional Ameri-
can institutions. Not till May, 1917, with
the passage Of the Selective Service Act,
did the United States ever plan to fight
or actually fight on foreign soil except
with volunteers along with the regulars.
Is it to be supposed that those expert
enced, intelligent and informed patriots
who so carefully debated and composed
our Federal Constitution, men who rep
resented the semi independent original
American States, meant to grant their
new general Government a power over
citizens that no known despotic govern
ment claimed? Hardly. They wrote:
Congress shall have power to raise and
support armies 80" to provide for calling
forth the militia to execute the laws of
the Union, suppress insurrection and
repel invasions = = to declare war -
The President shall be commander-in-
chief of the Army and Navy Of the
United States and of the militia of the
several States when called into the serv-
ice of the United States"
Is that language clear or not? The
right to apply conscription is plain
enough, but does it read that the Gov
ernment Is granted power to use the
milltia-that is, troops other than the
professional services-for any other than
domestic purposes. namely, to suppress
instructions, repel invasions and compel
obedience to law? The foreign policy of
this free republic was intended to be
peaceful and defensive, not impartial and
offensive.
Yet in May, 1917. Congress passed an
act under the authority of which the
President established and used, as COM
mander in chief. conscript army on
foreign battletields.
Now, when seeking to correct this sit
uation we ought not to apply a cure as
bad as the disease
In country so great in area and di-
versified in interests as ours, among so
numerous people made up of such q
variety of races and religious faiths, the
only kind OF Government that will hold
us together while at the same time pre-
serving free people is our representative
political system. In each of our Repre-
sentatives in both Houses of Congress
are combined the interests of all races,
religions groups. These men are in a po-
sition Of advantage for understanding,
better than the masses, what a great
crises consists of and what must be done
to meet it. They are therefore better
able than vast multitude, great per-
centage of which is wholly ignorant, to
determine whether or not war is the
necessary means Of preserving the Ma
tion's vital interests.
That Is not to say that we as citizens
should let our Representatives act with
out our advice But their interests are
naturally the approximation OF the in
terests of the majority Of us.
European war, which always involves
race hatreds, the clash of ancient relig-
ious, geographical and economic preju-
dices and rivalries, awakens the same
sentiments among their descendants in
the United States. We do not want our
people broken up into such groups, blocs
factions and sections, violently pitted
against each other. Yet what could more
easily and quickly bring all those differ
ences into flame than campaign for
direct vote on the question of partic-
ular war? Is 1t not obvious that this ac-
tion should rest in the hands of our Rep
resentatives in the National Govern
ment? Does it occur to you that the re-
suit OF plebiscite on war could impose
a war on the people Of the West by the
people of the East. or war decided by
the people of the North contrary to the
determined opposition of the South? Is
it possible for such a sectional division
to bring on civil war? Think it over.
The practical cure for this threat Of
CONSUMPTION Of Americans for foreign
military service lies in simple constitu-
tional amendment which plainly denies
to Government the despotic power to do
it. The amendment should not confuse
that power with the power to declare
war. There are many people in this land
whose main object in life is to change
our American form of Government, and
who seize upon every worthy movement
in order to affix rider" for accom-
plishing their destructive purpose.
So clarified, this amendment would
leave the military service abroad to the
regulars-Army and Navy-and to VOL