The Draft As It Was Intended and As It Should Be

THE DRAFT AS IT WAS INTENDED AND AS
IT SHOULD BE

Our esteemed evening contemporary, the Transcript, which occasionally imputes unworthy motives to those who differ with its editorial opinions, charges certain Massachusetts representatives in Congress with "playing politics with the war and delighting the heart of the imperial German government" by refusing to share what the Transcript calls practically universal "confidence in the fairness of the government's enforcement of the draft law." The Transcript believes that Senator John W. Weeks, Representatives Dallinger, Fuller and Gallivan "are not among those who wish to see the war prosecuted to a swift and victorious conclusion." The fact is that in their interpretation of the draft these men represent not only the overwhelming sentiment of the people but the sentiment of Congress itself when they say, as did Senator Weeks in his message to The Journal Monday:"The government should not take married men by draft or in any other way until available single men have been used. That policy would not only prevent much distress, but it is also economy to do so."

Or as Representative Dallinger says:"I believe that single men without dependents should be taken first, and understood that would be done under selective draft when the conscription bill was before the House."That Congress passed the draft law believing it would be truly selective and that men without dependents would be taken first is borne out by the reprint of the debate in Congress in the Congressional Record of May 16, reproduced in another column on this page.

But the fundamental issue in The Journal's protest against the present method, indorsed yesterday by the Massachusetts district boards, of applying the draft is not only that it is a breach of faith on the part of the administration with the people, but that it is utterly destructive and inefficient for the successful prosecution of the war.

The Journal believes that our one supreme task at present is to win the war. The Journal differs with some of its contemporaries on ways and means of encompassing that end. We believe that in many instances in our war to establish democracy throughout the world we needlessly and paradoxically sacrifice democracy at home. But we realize that war inevitably means a suspension of many of the peace time privileges of a democracy; that efficiency in war time of necessity demands centralization of powers; in fact, autocracy. Efficiency must be the watchword of the hour.

It is for this reason only, and solely with the desire of seeing the great draft experiment a success, that The Journal is emphatically protesting against the present method of applying it. Turn to the editorial comments of the Transcript and of the press in general throughout the country at the time conscription was being discussed in Congress and note the universal eulogy with which the selective idea was acclaimed, and rightly so."Selective means, as we have said before, taking from 10,000,000 registrants an army of men physically fit, not unwilling, whose absence would cause little or no disturbance in the social or economic community. We believe that such an army could be raised with the utmost ease by adherence to the selective principle and we know that such an army would be worth for the prosecution of the war a force twice its size raised according to prevalent methods.

It is wasteful and inefficient to limit the draft to the first million and one-half of the 10,000,000 registrants. The proper method, against which the one possible objection would be the slightly greater amount of time required, would be to call out the full list of registrants in every district, to sift and sort them and produce finally the quota of men with the combined qualifications above outlined. Throughout the country thousands of married men, who yield to none in patriotism, resent keenly the injustice by which they are drafted and compelled to leave their wives and children, probably for all time, to the tender mercies of government aid or charity, while millions of able-bodied bachelors are exempt by the mere accident of having drawn high serial numbers.

The particular phase of the draft by which men are rated only as meal tickets and selected for the army if their incomes happen to equal the amount they would receive as army pay is utterly unjust and undemocratic. It is class legislation directed at the poor. This is not the sort of thing which will tend to keep enthusiasm among the people for this war at fever heat.

When we entered this war we hoped to profit by the example of our allies and learn not to repeat their mistakes. England, to which we are more like than any other of our allies, was wise enough to divide the conscripts into three classes: first, the single men, then the married men, then the fathers. In urging the selective draft in this country, Lord Northcliffe, among others, pointed out that under the volunteer method, which prevailed in England early in the war, thousands rushed to enlist who should have waited for a later call, while thousands of ideal eligibles stayed behind. It was to obviate just this miscarriage of efficiency that we adopted the selective draft law. As it is we are not obviating it at all.

Gen. Crowder, in his directions to the exemption boards, urged that in all their decisions the nation and never the individual should be considered. Precisely. It is on that basis that we object to taking married men, especially with children, before the enlistment of all single registrants as utterly contrary to the national interest. This procedure is turning what might be a glorious success into a miserable botch, promoting inefficiency, confusion and unhappiness and endangering the national spirit so essential to the successful prosecution of the war. If, after the single men have all been drafted, the country needs still more man-power, the married will step forward by the millions as one man, eager for the privilege of being the first in their class to serve the republic.