Reserves, and would have attended field maneuvers twice. No man could have become a noncommissioned officer and later an officer, unless he had prepared himself by further training for each step of promotion. I do not mean to say that they would have had a sufficient amount of training. But suppose you had had 2,000,000 men a year ago who were organized and had had that much training, and all of these could have been called out immediately and given additional training. That would have been a tremendous preparation. Mr. CLASON. On the basis of your military experience, would you express an opinion as to whether or not any of these American troops will be called upon to fight outside of the Western Hemisphere? General PALMER. I think that they should be prepared for that, if the national interest demands it. Mr. CLASON. Yes; but that is not the question. I asked-we are sure that is why they are being trained, to be ready for service, of course-but I asked now, based upon your knowledge of international affairs, have you any opinion as to whether or not any of them or any number of them will be called upon to fight outside the Western Hemisphere? General PALMER. No, sir; I have not. That is a question for the future. Mr. CLASON. Then you do not see anything in the present picture, in the international crisis, or in the European war, which would lead you to believe that any of these troops will be called upon to fight outside the Western Hemisphere. General PALMER. I do not know whether that situation will arise or not. But it may in the immediate future. If it does, of course, they ought to face it. Mr. CLASON. But at the present moment, from what you know of the situation in connection with the European war, or from what you know of the international crisis, is there anything which leads you to believe that any of these troops will be called upon to fight outside the Western Hemisphere? General PALMER. I cannot say; I do not know. In the first place, I do not know what the Western Hemisphere is. Mr. CLASON. Well, outside of North or South America. General PALMER. I think some of these troops may have to be used to defend the necessary strategic outposts of the United States-just where, I do not know. I am not on the General Staff. I believe this: That to say that they shall or shall not do certain things on one side or the other of an imaginary line is an utter absurdity from the standpoint of military strategy and military history. Mr. CLASON. Then do you think this bill should include an amendment providing that these selectees, as well as others, may be used in the discretion of the President or of the General Staff at any point in the world? General PALMER. What is that? Mr. CLASON. Is it your opinion that this bill should be amended to permit the President or the General Staff to use these troops in their discretion anywhere in the world? General PALMER. Mr. Clason, I do not think I said anything that could be interpreted to mean that. The CHAIRMAN. This bill does not have any effect like that. Mr. CLASON. I am asking the gentleman if he thought the bill should be amended to that effect. You have read the bill? General PALMER. Yes, sir. Mr. CLASON. You know that according to this resolution and its relation to the present law, the selectees cannot be used outside of the Western Hemisphere or the possessions of the United States. General PALMER. If that is the law, I do not believe any such limitation should be written into the law. Mr. CLASON. You think the present law is defective in that respect? General PALMER. Yes, sir. That is my personal opinion. Mr. CLASON. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. Whether or not troops should be used and where they should be used generally should depend-practically all the time should depend on the judgment of the military command in charge. of them, is that correct? General PALMER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And subject to the orders of their superiors? General PALMER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. To the direction of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Staff. General PALMER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose they were stationed on some of our island bases and were attacked. Would they not have to fight back or do you think they should await an order from the President. General PALMER. They would have to fight. I think there is a very serious danger of war. We do not know when it is going to come or how it is going to come. But if it does come, I do not think we ought to be hampered. I think our mission would be solely to defeat the enemy. The CHAIRMAN. On that very point, an army that is partly insufficient to meet the opposition is just as futile as one that is wholly insufficient. General PALMER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. If it loses even by a small margin, it has lost. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions, gentlemen? We thank you for your appearance and your testimony, General. Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one more question of Mr. Clark. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. Mr. MARTIN. Did your organization help to draft the National Defense Act of 1920? Mr. CLARK. No. Let me explain. Prior to the war and during the war, we worked with the War Department actively in organizing the officers' training camps, and so forth. After the war we decided to continue. Let me explain that our organization-I speak of the Military Training Camps Association-came out of the first so-called Plattsburg Camp in 1915. The association was formed in 1916. When the previous war came on we offered our services to the War Department and suggested that the best means-in fact, the only means-of raising a corps of officers to officer the respective arms of the services, would be by adopting the system of the Plattsburg camps. We were asked to cooperate with the War Department, and we took part in that in a big way. We worked with them. Now, you are speaking of 1919. We decided to continue. Our group of men did not want to see us caught again in the same predicament without any manpower, organized, trained manpower. We thought it was to the best interests of the country to have a system of universal training and service, both. That was the principle that we adopted in our constitution. One purpose of our organization is to prepare, if possible, a Federal system of universal training and service. I remember the words. We pushed that. We published a magazine called National Service. We had a committee that we called the military affairs committee of our association. They put forward ideas and drafts for a system of universal training and service, and had some touch with it. After that, Colonel Palmer who, as he just testified, was advisor to Chairman Wadsworth's Senate Military Affairs Committee, we had some touch with the framing of that act, which was recommended by the Senate Military Committee, but failed in the Senate. We had some touch with it. We did not sponsor the bill. We did not draft it ourselves. Mr. MARTIN. The reason I was asking the question is that in that proposal, in the conscription part of the bill, they likewise provide $5 a month pay, and I wondered whether you, in drafting the bill last year, just took that proposal from the original bill back in 1920, or whether you had sponsored that level of pay during all that intervening time. Mr. CLARK. I think the fact that it was in the prior draft of 20 years before influenced us, because there was a philosophy behind it, namely, that for training in peacetime as distinguished from service in war, you had presented a different situation. The young men, when they got in there, received their clothes and their shelter and their food, and they were in for a relatively short time. And we thought that it should be regarded as a duty of citizenship. Mr. MARTIN. I see quite a distinction, though, between conscripting a man and forcing him to go into Army duty and taking him and inducing him to go into an officers' training camp. I attended the first officers' training camp before they decided to pay a cent of money. You also attended the one in Plattsburg. But we had a goal to shoot for. It was an entirely different matter. We were not in the armed forces until the third training camp of the World War. We were not in the armed forces; that is, unless we had been brought in from the armed forces. But, in offering a man training for a commission, you were giving him a prize to work for. We were not in the Army. But when you conscript a man and put him in the armed forces, that caused me to wonder whether you or your organization had sponsored the $5-compensation provision all during these years. Mr. CLARK. We did, but again I say for short terms of training in quiet times, in peacetimes; but not for service. And again I say I am not defending that. I think we made a mistake. Mr. MARTIN. You sponsored it a year ago. I appreciate that. The CHAIRMAN. If there is nothing further, we thank you very much, Mr. Clark; and you, General Palmer. We appreciate your coming before the committee. The committee will now go into executive session. (Whereupon the committee went into executive session.) PROVIDING FOR THE NATIONAL DEFENSE BY REMOVING RESTRICTIONS ON NUMBERS AND LENGTH OF SERVICE OF DRAFTEES. FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1941 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Andrew J. May (chairman), presiding. The CHAIRMAN. Let the committee please be in order. Gentlemen, we have a number of quite important witnesses this morning on this matter of the joint resolutions under consideration and, as many of you know-all of you know-Maj. Gen. Milton A. Reckord has been representative of the National Guard here for a number of years. General Reckord is present this morning. We will be glad to have you come around, General, and discuss this proposal in your own way, and make whatever statement you care to make about it; then, after you are through, maybe some of the gentlemen will wish to ask you some questions. STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. MILTON A. RECKORD, COMMANDING GENERAL, TWENTY-NINTH DIVISION, FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MD. General RECKORD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I am very glad to have this opportunity to speak upon the resolution, because it does give me a chance, perhaps, to refresh the minds of the members of the committee as to the position of the National Guard of the country, as an institution, over a long period of years. The chairman may remember, in 1933, a large group of officers of the guard came before this very committee with what was then known. as the National Guard bill. Up to that time, you may recall that section 111 of the National Defense Act provided, that when Congress authorized the President to use troops in excess of the Regular Army, members of the National Guard could be drafted into the Federal service as individuals. And in the World War, notwithstanding the fact that officers and members of the guard had volunteered, we had to be drafted for that service. That was not satisfactory to us, so we studied the subject within our own councils for many years and finally came before this committee with a plan and a bill; the heart of the bill being a change of section 111 which would eliminate the draft provision or draft feature and, in place of that feature, give us the present section 111, which provides that when the Congress shall declare a national emergency and authorize the President to use troops in excess of the Regular 65 Army, he may order the units of the National Guard and the members to active Federal service and that those units will then go into the active Federal service as at that time organized, as far as practicable. That section is on the books. It was enacted in 1933. Last year, when the selective-service legislation was being considered, the bill which was at first presented to the Congress was most unsatisfactory to the guard, because we thought we saw this large group of trainees being placed in between the National Guard and the Regular Army, which would result, in a few years, in relegating the guard to the rear, or to a State status. So we came before your committee and also went before the Secretary of War and the Chief of Staff and, if I may, I will read from the letter which was signed by the president of the National Guard Association and the president of the Adjutants General Association, indicating the position of the National Guard. This was written July 9, 1940: Deliberate misrepresentations, savoring of "fifth column" activities, as to the attitude of the officers and men of the National Guard toward emergency plans for the defense of this country have been made. In order that there may be no misunderstanding on your part or in the minds of the people of the United States, or the National Congress, or in any other agencies concerned, as to the attitude of the National Guard, the aforementioned organizations representing the National Guard of the United States do here state in the most emphatic manner possible that the National Guard stands ready and willing to enter into the service of the United States, as provided in the National Defense Act, today, tomorrow, or at any time the President of the United States sees fit to use the National Guard in the defense of this country. The National Guard does here and now reaffirm its traditional position on matters pertaining to national defense and desires to pledge to you and the War Department its fullest and most complete cooperation for the development and training of the land forces of the United States, of which it is a component, to meet the emergency that now confronts our country and our people. That was signed by General DeLamater and General Grahl. General RECKORD. They were, respectively, president of the National Guard Association of the United States and the Adjutants General Association of the United States. The CHAIRMAN. If I remember correctly, you were urging this committee last year, in the testimony on the Selective Service and Training Act, for it to be made possible that the guard could remain in the service longer than the period of 1 year, if necessary. Is that correct? General RECKORD. That is correct. And I might give the members of the committee the steps which took place in connection with that effort. The bill which was prepared in the War Department and sent to the White House had in it language to the effect that the Reserve components would be authorized to serve for not more than 1 year. The National Guard, in convention, passed this resolution on that feature-Resolution No. 8: Whereas the language in the National Guard bill recently enacted makes it mandatory that the National Guard be returned from their active Federal service at the end of 12 consecutive months; and Whereas the language of the Selective Service Act is contrary to the spirit of section 111 of the National Defense Act, in that it places men in training ahead of the National Guard of the United States in an emergency: Therefore be it Resolved, That the executive council of the National Guard Association is hereby directed to take steps to amend the National Guard bill by deleting the |