There is also an issue of consistency involved. The law recognized the right of conscience even when it leads men to refuse military service.

We cannot then consistently say that we recognize conscience in one manifestation and not in another equally sincere and involving no more real danger to public order.

We plead, finally, for consideration by your committee and by Congress of an amendment limiting sentence in cases where sincere conscientious objections to war is involved to 1 year, and provision against having a conscientious objector subjected to double or even triple jeopardy under the act; for example, for inability to register under the act and on completing sentence for that, for refusal to accept alternative service.

The act allows a maximum sentence up to 5 years. The result is that some men were sentenced to 3 months, others to 3 and in one or two cases 5 years.

When it is recalled that the highest sentence for refusal to register in the last war was only 1 year, we feel that the intent of Congress in recognizing that special consideration must be given to cases of conscience is being defeated by these extreme variations in sentences and by what may fairly be described as "cruel and unusual" punish

ments.

These cases are very few in number. There is no question of the sincerity or of the determination of these men. We are not asking mercy for them. They would be insulted and deeply hurt if we were to do so.

It is a question of what an enlightened and democratic government will do about the rights of conscience. In the minority opinion in the Macintosh case, previously referred to, Chief Justice Hughes commends "legislative policy" which avoids "unnecessary clashes with dictates of conscience."

We respectfully urge your committee to consider amendments to the section of the act relating to conscientious objectors in the light of that sage counsel.

We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to place our views before you.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you finished your statement?
Reverend MUSTE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, there is an amendment in the Senate to substitute S. J. Resolution 95. We have that under consideration now. The scope of that is somewhat larger than that considered by the committee at the present time. I think it would be well for the Senator to make explanations of his proposed amendment in order that some several witnesses who were here to testify this morning may be provided, if they so desire, an opportunity to comment upon the substitute which has been proposed by Senator Thomas.

Will you be good enough to do that, Senator?

Senator THOMAS of Utah. I believe that the statement made by the witness, that it would be better for Congress to assume the responsibility and make the declaration in regard to the emergency, is what brought forth the statement of our chairman.

At the opening of this hearing Senator Austin brought out the thought that probably it would be better for us to proceed by a simple resolution, expanding authority of the President in accordance with the Selective Service Act.

The logic of that expansion, of course, could not be questioned. Last week I worked upon the whole question, trying to make a unit of this resolution to take care of both the National Guard Act and the Selective Service Act, and take care of those questions which General Marshall declared were bothering him in the proper organization and development of our Army.

Therefore, the resolution is as simple as a resolution can be. It merely expressly declared that a national emergency exists, which, of course, is consistent with the declaration already made by the President of the United States.

Then, the resolution provides that the President is hereby authorized to exercise his power, conferred upon him by the act, whenever Congress recognizes the fact that our national interest is imperiled.

The first section of this resolution will cover both the men under the National Guard Act and the men under the Selective Service Act. The second section of the resolution deals primarily with that provision in the National Guard Act which guarantees jobs to those persons who are called in the service, when they return to civilian life.

No one, of course, is opposed to that provision, because everyone was in favor of the Government's attempt to preserve jobs rather than rate service, but the wording of the National Guard Act was such that that service was limited to a single year, so that it was necessary for us to put in this second provision to protect those men who might serve longer than 12 months.

Such a provision is not necessary for the protection of men under the Selective Service Act.

Then, the third section, and the fourth section, deal with the question of the Western Hemisphere.

I think, Doctor, we ought to state here that the Western Hemisphere amendment was not an amendment of this committee, and was not suggested by anyone off the floor of the Senate. It was introduced as an amendment on the floor of the Senate, and it was considered there and incorporated in the bill, because it passed the Senate and, later on, passed the House.

The force of that amendment, though, has been such that it has caused reorientation of people's thinking in regard to the present emergency, which had been troublesome to the Army in the ordinary administration of its work.

I will give a simple illustration.

We have a United States Court in China. We have treaties with China which provide that our troops can be sent there in certain contingencies, and they have been sent during the last thirty and odd years.

Now, a National Guard regiment has been sent to Hawaii. Assume that that regiment should be asked, because of that situation, to go over and do further duty in China, in accordance with the treaty, and to protect the United States Court in China-to give you the simple illustration and there were several men who were National Guard men serving for but 1 year, and several men who were selectees serving with them. The third and fourth provisions would make it possible for those men, by their own volition and by their own act, to weigh the prohibition against their going to China by their own action. It would not be a governmental affair, but it would be very much like the way in which the Selective Service Act works in California, where the men are called, drafted for training in Canada, but when

they are sent overseas they go of their own free will, by some sort of affirmative action.

Now, it just happens that the President's message covered all of these points excepting the Western Hemisphere point, and added another one wherein he suggested the elimination of 900,000 selectees in training at the present time.

This resolution hasn't considered the last suggestion of the President, but it did consider the Western Hemisphere which the President did not.

Is that what you wanted?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; thank you, sir.

Doctor, are there any comments that you would like to make upon this amendment of Senator Thomas?

Reverend MUSTE. Just this, by way of preliminary: That the steps which Senator Thomas has suggested as possible are to us illustrations of what happens when we conceive our interests to lie anywhere in the world, and when we believe that those interests must and can be defended by military means.

It seems to us that that leads from one fatal step to another. We adopt a doctrine of so-called impregnable defense but to be impregnable means to be in a position to meet any enemy or combination of enemies, and defeat them; and if a nation were actually to put itself in that position, then it would be in a position to decide by a preponderance of military power any international issue that might arise in the world.

If one nation seeks to put itself in that position, inevitably other nations seek to put themselves in that position, and it seems to us that by that process there is nothing but calamities ahead for us all.

Now, however, assuming that for the sake of the argument, the Nation is committed to such course of military defense, then I want to say that we do not want to enter into a discussion of technical military measures or strategy.

If we take the position that we cannot conscientiously participate in war, then I think we ought to leave those questions to those who have to bear that burden; but from the standpoint of general public policy I believe that it is vastly better, as this resolution proposes, in the first place, for Congress directly to assume the responsibility which, I think, rests upon it; and, in the second place, I think that always a policy of dealing perfectly squarely and directly with people and giving them, therefore, the opportunity voluntarily to make their own decision in such a matter as section 3 proposes, is the better

course.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all, Doctor?

Reverend MUSTE. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Doctor.

We have on our list here this morning a number of witnesses to be called, and I have received communications from several witnesses present to the effect that they are very, very busy and they must return to their respective homes.

I make mention of that fact because there have been numerable communications of that sort directed to me, and the committee is exceedingly regretful it can't accommodate all of these witnesses at one time so they may return immediately and, as a result thereof, we will be forced to call them in the order in which we have set their names for calling, much as we would like to call every one of you first.

We dislike very much to keep you here, but at the same time it is absolutely impossible to call everybody first. The next witness is Mr. Frank Olmstead, national chairman of the War Resisters League, of New York City.

STATEMENT OF FRANK OLMSTEAD, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF THE WAR RESISTERS LEAGUE

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Olmstead, if you will be good enough to provide the official reporter with your full name and the name and address of the organization you represent, and the number of members you represent.

Mr. OLMSTEAD. I represent the War Resisters League. I am in a rather different capacity from Mr. Muste of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, because he is an employed officer.

I happen to be just the elected chairman of this organization, which is an organization of about 20,000 members. Address, at 2 Stone Street, New York City.

The honorable national chairman is John Haynes Holmes. The vice chairman is Dr. Evan Thomas, and Dr. Sidney Goldstein, assistant rabbi of Free Synagogue.

Among our members are people like Harry Emerson Fosdick, Allen Chalmers. I am just giving you a little idea of the character of the organization.

Senator AUSTIN. Is that Dr. Evan Thomas, of Burlington?

Mr. OLMSTEAD. He is a professor of the New York University College of Medicine-incidentally, a brother of Norman Thomas. What I am saying is not an official statement. It is rather the voice of one who is, as an individual, keenly interested in this thing; one who earns his living along other lines.

I, of course, am in no position to have technical knowledge along these lines, but I did want to share with you something of the viewpoint which it seems to me is typical of that held by a great many people in this country.

I earn my living, I might say, as director of the college, summer service group, a group of about 40 students that come this summer from 32 colleges in 23 States, and I have been interested to see that the bulk of those students coming from all over the country have a good deal of the attitude which I express here.

In fact, some of the things which I have been saying here are ideas which have been put forward by these students coming from many sections of the country, although in no sense do I speak officially for this group.

The statement which I prepared is as follows:

The War Resisters League, which I represent, is, so far as I know, the only nonreligious pacifist organization which is active in this country. We are entirely nonpolitical.

To us, Stalin differs from Hitler only in the methods by which he has arrived at his dictatorship, and Churchill and Roosevelt-the way things are going-may end by differing only in their good intentions.

I am speaking for those whom Congress has generously provided for in the Selective Service Act-the conscientious objectors. This group has a stake in this service problem. They have a viewpoint which deserves to be heard.

They are one of the most thoughtful, most truly mature groups in the country. They embody for all of us our hopes of the future. We all believe in the brotherhood of man. We all want peace.

These men have developed such a compelling sense of brotherhood that they find themselves unable under any conceivable circumstances to kill their fellow men.

We are par

The War Resisters League is opposed to all war. ticularly alarmed by the proposal to extend the year of service for the drafted men because we are convinced that the proposal is not sincere; that it is really a step toward a new A. E. F.

We believe that this measure is less a part of military preparation, and much more a part of indirect propaganda designed to make the country think that war is inevitable.

Behind the argument in favor of an extension of the training period lie presuppositions which should be examined.

It is assumed that the conquered countries are assets. This is largely a false assumption. Hitler is not stronger by reason of his conquests. He is weaker, having these resentful, hating peoples at his back.

This is true even if he masters all of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Japan has found out what a resentful people can do. In the end the peoples of Europe will be no less ingenious and courageous.

It is assumed that a year of training has so little value that a third of our fighting force would be lost by letting the men off at the end of the year. It seems to me that some rather vital battles were won by our men in France who had had less practical training, than with enlarged experience, is being given the men now.

I might say that during the World War I was a Y. M. C. A. secretary in Russia under the Bolsheviks for nearly a year, and then we went to north Russia and joined the Allies fighting the Bolsheviks, and I saw men arrive there who had gone to training camp sent immediately to ship, sent to England, got up on the ship, got on to another ship, come up to Archangel, got off the train, and come down to the front, where, when they got off of the box cars, they were under fire.

Now, I am not saying that those men wouldn't have done very much better work had they had more training. I am saying that I think that the year of preparation which is being given to these men should give a degree of training which is far in advance of anything which the men had before, and certainly in the battles in France demonstrations were given of the effective fighting force developed by_training, which must have been less than is possible at this time.

It is assumed that if England were to be defeated the Americas would be in danger of invasion. Of course, there is evidence that Hitler and his aids propose such a development. So did they plan to be in England last fall, and would doubtless have succeeded had it not been for the English Channel.

Water remains an effective barrier and 10 times as much water is far more than 10 times as effective. We should not forget that water separates Germany and Dakar as well as Dakar and South America.

Why are false conclusions drawn from the facts? We do not believe that the men who do so are fools or traitors. We believe that they are afraid and in their fear they are distorting the truth.

60876-41--10