Paul O. Husting to Henry F. Hollis

COPY.The Army Bill is now before the Senate providing for the raising of an Army by conscription instead of volunteering and it is generally reported that the Administration, the War Department and the Staff are behind this Bill and desire to have it passed as drawn. There appears on the one hand to be a strong sentiment in the House in favor of a volunteer system and, on the other hand, in the Senate in favor of conscription. It is unfortunate, indeed, that at this crisis there should be any substantial division of opinion between the President, the Secretary of War and the Staff on the one hand, and members of Congress on the other, most, if not all, of whom are extremely desirous of supporting the Administration in whatever war measures it considers necessary, advisable or expedient to take.
It must be entirely clear to every member of Congress that the number of men and the amount of money necessary to be raised, the disposition of the troops, the expenditure of moneys, and the war necessities and strategies, generally speaking, are matters of military policy and peculiarly within the province of the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and his advisers. It seems also quite clear, therefore, that Congress should provide the number of men and the amount of money demanded. But on the other hand, it seems clear to me also, that the ways and means of providing the men as well as the way and means of providing the money is peculiarly within the province of Congress. What I want to say is that Congress should within reason and almost as a matter of course see to it that the men and money are delivered as requested but that the ways and means of getting and providing the men and the money should almost as a matter of course be left to Congress.
Of course, notwithstanding the division of responsibilities or functions it is extremely desirable and important that we should be able to arrive at and reach a unanimous agreement in the premises if possible. It would seem to me wise, therefore, that in order to reconcile these differences a basis of unanimous agreement might be reached by combining the volunteer and conscriptive features and thus harmonize not only differences of opinion but solidify and unify the country back of the Presidential program.
Now, I need not point out to you that I have consistently stood back of the President at every angle in controversies with Germany and I also want to say that I would feel extremely reluctant now to withdraw or withhold my support of the President in the fight on this Bill. In fact, while not definitely committing myself in this letter, I have no present expectation of voting against the bill that the President in the last analysis wants passed, On the other hand, however, there are a number of Senators and a very large number of members of the House who would be greatly pleased if the President would see fit to modify his views and merge the two propositions.
Now, in substance and effect this would be my proposition:That the President call by proclamation one million men or such other number as may be required from those subject to military duty under the Act of June 1916 between certain ages to be designated in the call, the age requirement of course to be the same as is contemplated under the draft. That immediately upon the passage of the Act the Department of War proceed forthwith to prepare all the necessary machinery for the draft.
That at the expiration of 30 or 60 days or at the earliest moment at which the actual drafting may begin, the Department shall proceed to select men by draft in a sufficient number to meet the requirement of the President's call less the number who may have voluntarily enrolled and enlisted themselves and have been recruited in the meantime under the following provision:That within 30, 45 or 60 days after the date of this Act goes into effect or at the earliest date upon which the selection by draft is possible, any man subject to draft under the Act may present himself before the proper recruiting officer of the National Guard or Regular Army for enlistment and recruitment subject to the same rules, requirements and conditions, physical and selective, as obtain in the recruiting and selection of men under the draft.
Now, I would like to mention as briefly as possible why I think this would be a wise compromise. In the first place, I think that this plan would meet every objection raised by the advocates of conscription on the one hand and the advocates of the volunteer system on the other. The voluntary enlistment under the Act should be selective just the same as by draft. There is no argument that can be advanced in favor of the selective draft system that will not apply with equal force to the selective volunteer system, and there is no practical reason why it can not be applied with the same effect alike in both cases. Thus, a man who would be rejected because he might be more useful elsewhere under the draft can certainly be rejected for the same reason when he offers to volunteer. Again, it is said that by volunteering we get the best men first. It seems to me that is what we need and want. We ought at least to have as a nucleus a body of splendid young men to form the skeleton Army so that the men when drafted (as of course they will be) will fill in without demoralizing the whole body of the Army. Moreover, you will have a body of men as a nucleus that can absolutely be depended upon and we will be able to put our best foot forward right from the start.
Again, it is said, that the volunteer system is unfair because it puts the burden on some and takes it off from others. Of course, if the defense of the country is looked upon as a penalty this is entirely correct but if the purpose of raising an Army is to get men who are anxious and willing to fight for their country then it would seem wiser and more prudent to get men that will constitute and efficient Army and that, of course, is what an Army is for; that is to say, we want an Army that wants to, will and can fight. On the other hand, to take in a drag-net way men of certain ages regardless of their willingness, ability, or power to fight and to try to make an Army of them is to take chances on getting a poor and inefficient Army. There are some men that have the qualities of a fighter - who have the courage, the patriotism and the desire to fight for their country. There are a goodly number of men that are constitutionally and temperamentally unfit and unable to fight. By the drag-net system you are leaving out good men who wish to fight and getting unfit men in who can't and don't want to fight. Some men are generous and want to give. Do we, therefore, forbid philantropic acts and insist that no money should be raised for eleemosynary purposes except by taxation because it would be unfair to the giver? This argument puts the matter of fighting for one's country on the wrong plane. The American (if I judge him correctly) is willing to be led but dislikes to be driven. I think there are hundreds of thousands of men in this country who are ready to volunteer and who will offer to give their life and their services to their country -- who would object, or at least who would dislike, to be taken by draft into the same service; that is to say, who would dislike to be forced to do the same thing they would gladly and voluntarily do without force if given the opportunity.
Now, let me give a few brief reasons why I think that the propositions I have made are wise and would be acceptable to the advocates of the volunteer system. It is conceded, I think, by almost every man in Congress that if the President calls for a million men or any other number of men that it is the duty of Congress to provide him those men. It follows then, of course, that if these men are not to be gotten by volunteering, they must be gotten by draft. The thing is to get the men and to get them at the earliest possible moment because certainly when we are in any war - especially in a war like this - time is of the very essence.
Now on page 925 of the current volume of the Congressional Record it appears from the statements of Senators Chamberlain and Wadsworth that on or about the first of August is the earliest date at which men recruited under the draft will be obtainable. This means then that if we rely upon draft only we will lose practically all of the months of May, June and July. I would like to have some one tell me why these three golden months should be lost to the country in a time of stress and emergency like this. It may be said that we can not raise a million men in three months by the volunteer system. That may be. I am reliably informed, however, that Wisconsin would thru the National Guard instrumentalities furnish its quota under a call for 800,000 men in thirty days, and if the rest of the country would do as well, a very large proportion, if not all, of the men under the call would be secured. Supposing, however, by voluntary enlistment we raised only half of even less or whatever the number may be, yet we will at any rate have these and these are “velvet”. Not only this, but these men will be at once put into training and many of them (perhaps thousands of them and perhaps tens of thousands of them) will have become trained soldiers before any one of them could possibly have been recruited under the conscriptive system. In short, by permitting volunteering pending the perfection of the draft machinery, we will get at least several hundred thousand men - perhaps the very identical men who would be drafted anyway under the call - but not one of whom we could possibly have recruited before the draft machinery has been perfected. Can any one tell me why we should forego this tremendous advantage?Again in doing this, we are in effect telling thousands of men who are anxious to volunteer their services forthwith that we are going to waste three months of their and their country's valuable time in order to compel them by force to do what which they are now willing to do voluntarily.
Again, the volunteer system will enable group recruiting. I know of little cities, villages and even Indian Reservations in Wisconsin where there are companies of young men who desire to enlist in a body. They do not want to be recruited individually; they want to enlist together; they want to camp together; they want to fight together; they want to care for one another and want to be associated together. In the Civil War (I am told by old veterans) nothing tended to promote the esprit du corps more amongst men then to be thus associated together with their old time neighbors and friends. I want to emphasize again that the self-selection of men volunteering to fight insures and guarantees a grade of men that will make a formidable and efficient Army and nothing will do more to stimulate recruiting than to enable young men bound together by some ties of association to enlist in a body and nothing will stir up greater enthusiasm and patriotism, in my judgment, than permitting such group enlistments. There are thousands and thousands of young men who would not hesitate to join the Army if they could enlist in a body with their friends and associates - but who would hesitate and shrink from going to war associated with men whom they have never known or seen.
I believe it is always rather imprudent and unwise to change policies in the midst of a great crisis. It is only another way of observing what Abraham Lincoln said: “It is dangerous to swap horses crossing a stream”. The volunteer system has been in force as long as we have been a nation. We have never had any other system. We have only resorted to draft as a secondary method of recruiting soldiers. We are now assured by the Staff that a conscription system will be a success. How can any one tell or know that? It may work out splendidly – it may work out disastrously. It is said that we should profit by the mistakes of England. I am not so sure that England made any mistake in resorting to volunteering before she resorted to conscription. It is hard to demonstrate, of course, but I have my doubts whether England would have stood for a draft of several million men right off the bat. She resorted to volunteering and got, as I understand it, over two million men in that way. In the meantime, public sentiment became aroused against the so-called “Slacker” and conscription not only became advisable but popular as well as inevitable. Moreover, England before resorting to draft became thereby the possessor of two million volunteers, loyal and dependable Englishmen, who were available to put down any incipient riot in the event that their people had attempted to resist the draft.
I have in my possession a letter from a prominent socialist who has provided me with a true copy of the resolution adopted by the Socialist Convention at St. Louis which in plain terms recommends forcible resistance to the draft if and whenever the draft shall be resorted to.
I have further been informed that this resolution is about to be or is being distributed for referendum purposes to all Socialists in the United States. Should such resolution be adopted by the Socialist Party in this referendum (and its adoption has been recommended by the Socialist Party in Convention assembled in St. Louis, then the Socialist Party will be committed to forcible resistance to draft and we are sure to have some serious trouble. Now I do not of course say that we should not resort to draft because of any threats of this kind. What I do suggest, however, is that anticipating or apprehending trouble and before or at the time of resorting to draft it would be wise and prudent on our part to have a loyal volunteer army on hand upon which we can depend to put down any incipient riot or insurrection. And some ask why we should not accumulate an additional force of several hundred thousands of men, pending the getting ready for the draft which I have already shown is at least three months away, so that we may then be in a position to handle any situation that may arise? Why should we not improve each moment during the next three months to strengthen our defense? What good reason can be advanced to sustain the proposition that a force of several hundred thousands of volunteers pending the getting ready for a draft is not better than no force at all? Now, another thing, there is a very strong and decided sentiment founded upon the unvarying practice and policy of this country that a draft can only be justified when volunteering halts or fails. In other words, that we are not justified in compelling men to fight unless men refuse to fight. Under the proposition that I have suggested, when the time limit has expired, whether it is 30, 45, 60 or 90 days and notwithstanding the opportunity to volunteer has been given, there is still a deficiency, then the machinery for the draft will have been perfected and we can without further legislation or executive order immediately proceed to draft the necessary men into the service. Remember that no men under the draft system could have been gotten into the service before this time anyway! Not only this, but it will have then been demonstrated if there is a deficiency (and that there will be a deficiency I have little doubt) that the call for vountary enlistment was responded to only in part; that a sufficient number have not volunteered; that more men are needed and that, therefore, it is not only advisable but necessary to make the draft. In other words, the public will then be convinced that a sufficient number of men would not volunteer and would then give their prompt approval to the draft as the only way remaining to get the men.
And now to recapitulate: If the proposition that I suggested be accepted it will put an end to all disagreement and will establish harmony of purpose and united and speedy action. I say speedty action because the bill would then go through, in my judgment, with little, if any, further debate and no time would be lost in conference. Word would go out to the world that we had agreed on a program that satisfied everybody and that the people as a whole were back of it and solidly back of the country in the war. It would secure the men, secure a part at once and would result in our having trained men in the field, under the volunteer system at or before drafting could possibly begin. The selective idea could be applied to volunteering as well as to drafting and could be done by the same machinery or provisions of the law that will be applied to the selective conscription system. No time can possibly be lost; on the contrary, time will be gained instead. We run no risk of any disastrous effects to insure a successful raising of the men called and, I repeat, more quickly and more satisfactorily to all concerned than could possibly be done under the conscription system. The adoption of this proposition, moreover, will serve as a bridge or pass-over from the volunteer system to the universal service system which it appears has been gaining ground in the minds of the American people as a fixed policy for the future. By using the time honored volunteer system as an initiatory measure in this crisis in the manner proposed and supporting it by the draft, or in other words, by the universal service system, we logically and naturally pass from the old system to the new; and if it should appear that sufficient men i on the initial call can not be raised by the volunteer system there will be no occasion for argument in favor of another call for volunteers and the universal service system will thus be established at least for this war.
I am writing this to you, my dear Senator, because you and I have acted so closely together in so many matters close to the heart of the President. I know how highly you stand in the estimation of and how intimate you are with the President and the Secretary of War. I know that you will not misconstrue my motives in writing to you but that you will understand that I have only the good of the country at heart and the good of this Administration at heart. From what you said to me in our conversation, I gathered that you had some sympathy with my views as here expressed and I thought perhaps if I wrote them out, you might submit them to the President and the Secretary of War and also give them the benefit of your judgment respecting the same.With assurances of my highest respect and esteem, I remain,PH/HRM