(The Crimson invites all men in the University to submit signed communications of timely interest. It assumes no responsibility, however, for sentiments expressed under this head and reserves the right to exclude any whose publication would be palpably inappropriate.)
To the Editors of the CRIMSON:
Mr. Chandler advances that militarism is not synonymous with conscription; that in Switzerland we have the latter without the former; that General Pershing is demonstrably not biased by his profession, that we must have an "adequate" army; that a democracy is immune from militarism.
Militarism is not synonymous with conscription. The first is a poisonous state of mind more or less existent in all nations. The second is, of all political measures, the one best calculated to give that state of mind power and scope. I bow to the distinction.
Switzerland, in spite of conscription, is not notably militaristic--because she cannot possibly profit from a war with any of the nations she can possibly have to fight; and knows it. Does Mr. Chandler suggest a parallel?
Of course General Pershing advocates a smaller standing army and a less militaristic training, and any other concession that will make way for the vital principle of conscription. What does Mr. Chandler thing an intelligent militarist would do in the same position: sacrifice the chance of conscription to the chance of a larger standing army? Hardly.
Nobody knows what an "adequate" army is. How small an army we can maintain depends on how small an army we can induce each other nation to maintain. We can hardly achieve that end by this disingenuous grab at the principle of conscription, together with much talk of an altogether hypothetical "necessity."
Perhaps a democracy can save itself from militarism. Perhaps it can save others. That is what we are trying to prove. But Mr. Chandler is not helping us. SYDNEY FAIRBANKS. 1L.