Paul O. Husting to Woodrow Wilson

On Apr. 12th last, I had the honor of discussing with you the question of the advisability of raising troops by conscription or volunteering and I then made the suggestion that it be done by combining both. At that time, I did not know, nor was it generally known, that the drafting machinery could not be perfected before three months after the passage of the Bill. It is plain from the statements of Senator Chamberlain and others that no soldiers can be brought to the colors by conscription until or about August 1st. This means that we shall lose the months of May, June and July, when time seems to me to be of the very essence.
Since seeing you, I have talked with men who have been and now are your warm supporters and all of whom off-hand were quite enthusiastically in favor of conscription because they believed that the volunteer system meant delay and that conscription meant immediate results. Upon being informed, however, that the draft machinery could not be perfected and that men could not be brought to the colors until on or about August 1st, these men, almost without exception, at once agreed with me that it not only would be wise but essential that pending the perfection of the draft machinery, we secure all the men possible by voluntary enrollment. They agreed with me most emphatically that the thing of first importance was to get men. I, therefore, beg to state that, in my judgment, if the people of the United States who favor conscription were informed that conscription meant three months' delay, or for that matter meant even one month's delay, they would favor the voluntary enrollment pending the time that the draft machinery can be put in practical operation.
So strongly have I become convinced that the insistence on a draft at the expense of valuable and precious time would be a mistake that I have sought to enlist the interest and co-operation of Senators who, like myself, have been friends and supporters of the Administration thru thick and thin and who have nothing but the welfare of the country and of the Administration at heart, and who feel that the defeat of the Government in its war policy would be not only unfortunate but perhaps disastrous. We find ourselves in this awkward and unfortunate dilemma, viz: We must either sustain the Government by voting for a Bill which we think is unwise and may work out disastrously or we must (may) defeat the Government which also may mean disaster by voting for a Bill that accords with our own convictions. I realize that to defeat the Government in this crisis would weaken it in the eyes of the world and particularly in the eyes of our enemies and we thereby would in a way aid and comfort our enemy. I have felt and often reiterated that the want of solidarity of the country - the failure of the people to back up our Government in its negotiations had much to do finally in bringing us into war with Germany. And, therefore, now that we are at war with Germany, I feel it would be most unfortunate for this Congress to defeat the Government. I will go further and say that I think it would be most unfortunate if there should be any substantial opposition to the Government or any substantial vote against the Army Bill now pending before both Houses.
That there is a very strong and substantial sentiment in Congress and amongst the people in favor of volunteering is quite manifest and this sentiment is not confined to those who from motives not friendly but hostile to the Government have obstructed, hindered and delayed this Government in all of its controversies with Germany. On the contrary, this sentiment is deep in the hearts of many of the members of Congress and of the people who have strongly supported the Government in all its controversies with Germany. The reason for this is not far to seek. The American volunteer has fought to a successful issue every war in which this country has been engaged and the Volunteer Army is an institution of 134 years of standing. While it is true that the universal service idea has taken root and is spreading rapidly, yet public opinion has not had the opportunity or the time to crystallize into anything like a unanimous sentiment in favor of it. Moreover, the universal service system has never been put into effect or has even been tried. If we had adopted the universal service system - say four or five years ago - and we thereby had put thru a course of training several million men of proper age whose names, addresses and qualifications were known and these men had been properly catalogued and classified, we would now have the foundation for an intelligent selective conscription such as is now contemplated. But the fact is that we have had no universal service and the question that is now confronting us has nothing to do with universal military service. It is proposed to tear up by the roots an old and tried, and at least with us, successful system of volunteering for an untried draft system which will like a drag-net take in by lot or chance young men, many of whom may physically be fit for military duty but who may tempermentally or constitutionally be of no fighting value and, vicae versa, leave out men who not only are tempermentally and constitutionally fit for military duty but who are anxious and desirous of fighting for their country.
I am not unaware and unconscious of the arguments used that patriotic young men would enlist and less patriotic men would shirk under the volunteer system. But even so, my idea is that we want an Army that can fight and want it as soon as we can get it; that we want to start out with a nucleus of an Army that is made up of fighting men and who can be depended upon, and that when such an Army is obtained to begin with, it can then be safely recruited with men of the conscriptive type.
I repeat that there is a substantial sentiment in and out of Congress in favor of volunteering and that there are some very good and substantial reasons for it. People are seldom prepared to abandon, at a moment's notice, without opportunity for due and careful consideration, a system which they have been taught to believe and do believe to be the best in the world. They particularly hesitate to do so in a great crisis like this. I submit, therefore, that this sentiment is something that should and must be reckoned with because in order to have any system work out it must, of course, have the great mass of the people back of it.
Another thing to be considered in this connection is that this country has been seriously divided on the question of war itself. While there never was any doubt in my lmind that the people of the country in the end would support our Government in whatever course it thought necessary to take, even to the extent of war, yet it must be remembered that many people are supporting the Government not because they licke war but only because they have faith in their President, their Government and are patriotic citizens.
We must also remember that there are organized forces abroad and in our land that at heart are dissatisfied with the Government and anxious to stir up dissatisfaction, dissension and trouble. The Socialists in Convention assembled have passed a resolution counseling forcible opposition to the draft. The disloyal pro-German elements, while quiet, are nevertheless secretly and busily intriguing and working against the Government. Some of the extreme pacifists are not in harmony with the Government's war measures. All these have been quick to see that the detested draft will be unpopular in the extreme in many states and, therefore, have aligned themselves against conscription. I fear that we are plarcing into their hands the most effective weapon that we can give them to promote their nefarious and treasonable purposes; in other words, I think this Conscription Bill is “water on their wheel”.Now, may I take the liberty to suggest a proposition which I believe would unite all of the friends of the Administration and disarm the opposition and at the same time accomplish better and quicker results than the Bill now before the Senate?I enclose herewith a letter written by me to Senator Hollis on Apr. 24th, which sets out my proposition and my reasons for suggesting it as well as my reasons for writing it to him. May I ask you to be good enough to read the letter and consider the arguments which I have attempted to make therein?If the Administration could see its way clear to suggest, that is to say, initiate a proposition like this as a compromise, it would, in my opinion, involve no surrender whatever of a single idea embraced in the Senate Bill and at the same time would give the opponents of the Bill everything that they can reasonably ask for. I say this would involve no surrender whatever if the proposition came from the White House and if accepted by both Houses (as I am quite positive it almost unanimously would be), the world would understand that Congress and the people are unitedly back of the Government's program. Not only that, but it would give the most convincing assurance to Germany that we had laid the foundation for an Army that would grow to any proportions that the exigencies might require. It would allay all ill feeling and dissatisfaction in the nation and would disarm our enemies at home. If we secured by selective voluntary enrollment all the soldiers required by the call, we could furnish no more convincing proof that the people were solidly back of the Government. If we did not secure the entire number on the first call within the time limited, all arguments in favor of another volunteer call would fall to the ground and the draft would justify itself. Every member of Congress and all the people know that we must get the men by the draft if sufficient numbers do not volunteer and in the event that the initial call for volunteers should bring to the colors an insufficient number of men, there could be no argument left why another call for volunteers should be issued because everybody would understand then that all additional soldiers would have to be gotten under the draft. Consequently, in that event the initial call for voluntary enrollment and enlistment would constitute the bridge upon which we could pass from the olld system to the new without first burning the bridge before we got across. Those favoring the volunteer system would not only be satisfied to have had their judgment and sentiments respected but, convinced that volunteering will not produce the necessary soldiers, they would be quick to join with the others in making the draft successful. And in addition to this, an Army of at least several hundreds of thousands of soldiers would actually be in esse - a force sufficient to discourage any draft riot and enough to “pacify” any and every potential trouble maker.Now, Mr. President, I want to say in conclusion that while I feel that the passage of the Bill now before the Senate would be a grave mistake, yet, at the same time, I feel that the defeat of the Government might even involve this country in still graver consequences because of the moral effect it might have in Europe and also among our own people. I have directed myself, therefore, to you in the belief that whatever is proposed at this stage should emanate from the Government so that whatever is done would be done in full accord with the Government's wishes and would and could in no wise be construed as a defeat of the Government's purposes.
With assurances of my highest respect and esteem, I remain,