Evening star., 1943-02-03
New Druft Policy

New Droft Policy
Chairman Paul v. McNutt of the
Manpower Commission has an
nounced that after April l the selec-
tive Service Act will be used as 4
means Of inducing married men
with children to seek jobs In war
industries. The act was not passed to
achieve any such objective. however.
and there will be serious doubt as
to the wisdom Of applying it to such
an end.
Under the new policy announced
by Mr.. McNutt, men now deferred
because Of dependents who are with
in the draft age limits and working
in non-essential jobs are notified
that they may avoid being drafted
by transferring to some war industry
through the machinery of the United
States Employment Service. In other
words, and stating it BADLY, the
threat Of compulsory military serv-
ice is being used as a substitute for
the more fortnight and more order
ly method OF enacting legislation to
require men to work In war plants.
This is the product Of what seems
to be a curious line OF reasoning.
The Selective Service Act, although
passed in peacetime, was based quite
frankly on the principle that men
should be compelled to serve their
country in the Army. It has been
accepted by the people because 1t was
the logical and the fair thing to do,
and because it supplied an orderly
method Of accomplishing what had
to be done. Now, after more than a
year Of war, It has become essential
to compel men to take jobs In war
industries 20 that other men who
have been drafted into the armed
services can be supplied with the
weapons they need. But the ap-
proach to this latter problem Is
neither logical nor necessary. In
stead Of seeking compulsory war
work legislation, comparable to the
selective service law, the adminis-
tration has resorted to an indirect
sanction which treats the privilege
and the duty Of military service as
though it were 4 sort Of punishment,
and has even gone to the extent Of
pointing out a method OF escape for
those who want to avoid Army
service. :
This Is q procedure to which many
objections lie, few Of which may
be mentioned. In the first place, 1t
can hardly be considered hattering
to the men who are serving their
country at the fronts. Second, 1t
puts man who might want to trans
fer to war Job, and who might be
needed there, In the position Of
lodging military service. Finally, II
It has any substantial effect, 1t can
only lead to all the confusion that
carefully considered work legislation
would avoid. What would happen,
for instance, II 4 very large percent
age Of the men affected by the order
were to give up their present en-
ployment to take war jobs? The
armed services either would not get
the men they must have through the
draft or there would have to be q
cancellation Of the implicit assur-
ance Of draft immunity contained in
Mr.. McNutt's new policy. The So
called essential industries, many
of which are essential In part, would
be thrown into complete and need
less chaos. More men probably
would become available than are
needed In war plants and the serv-
Ices. The surplus presumably would
have to drift back to their original
Jobs, II the establishments for which
they formerly worked were still
functioning.
II a case Of real necessity could be
made out for such policy as this,
Its shortcomings would have to be
overlooked. But, in the absence Of
an attempt to reach the same OBJ
jective through legislation, the In
direct approach is both unnecessary
and unwise.