Evening star., 1940-08-13
Emotional Arguments


worth compulsory selective service
bill advanced three arguments
against that measure in the Senate
yesterday which suggest that their
opposition Is based more on emotion
than on reason.
One of the critics, Senator Van
denberg of Michigan, an advocate OF
the volunteer system, described the
selective service bill as this infa-
NOUS thing" That is strong Ian
guage, and, to employ synonyms,
means that the principle of selective
service is contemplate or shameful.
Senator Vandenberg opposes adop-
ton of selective service legislation
because of its element of compulsion,
because it makes all qualified citizens
liable for service to their country
and provides for the impartial selec-
ton by lot of those actually to be
called for military training. He
strongly prefers a volunteer system
under which, assuming for the mo-
ment that it might produce the
needed men, the sacrifices incidental
to military service would be made by
the patriotic and loyal citizens, while
those inclined to accept the benefits
of democracy without assuming the
accompanying obligations would stay
at home. The Burke-Wadsworthb bill,
while permitting volunteering, would
impose the obligation of service i'm
partially on all citizens; the volun-
teer system alone, in a period of
emergency, merely penalties the pa
triotic citizen while accommodating
the Stacker. If the word infamous"
is applicable to either system, it
seems obvious that it has been mis-
applied by the Michigan Senator.
Another complaint was that pre-
ferred by Senator Norris of Nebraska,
who, while conceding that the dicta-
tors would like to conquer the United
States, opposed peacetime conscrip-
tion on the ground that it would lead
inevitably to dictatorship. That, of
course, is an expression of opinion,
and can neither be proved nor dis
proved. But it might be pointed out
that nations like Switzerland and
Sweden adopted peacetime conscrip-
ton long ago, but neither country
has found it necessary to adopt a
dictatorial form of government. The
same thing was true of France,
where peacetime conscription was
enforced for years under form of
government at least as liberal as
ours, and which was supplanted by
something approaching dictatorship
only after her defense equipment
had proved unequal to the test of
war.
The third objection was advanced
by Senator Clark of Missouri, who
charged that the General Staff of
the Army has always favored univer-
sal compulsory service, because it
will make colonels out of captains
and brigadier generals out of majors
and major generals and lieutenant
generals out of colonels." That is an
argument the unworthineSs of which
jpeaks for ITSELF and the General
Staff needs no defenders against
such accusations. But it might be
pointed out that universal compul-
sorry service also is favored by such
distinguished retired officers as Gen.
eral Pershing and Admiral Standley,
men who could not possibly benefit
personally by its adoption, and it
would be interesting to know how
Senator Clark would impugn their
motives.
Complaints such as these find no
support in fact or in reason and can
be charged off to the heat engen-
dered by debate. When the atmos-
phere is cleared of such charges,
the essential fact remains that COM
pulsory training based on a selective
service law is the faireSt, the surest
and the most efficient method of
raising the man power needed for
the defense of America.