A new struggle, perhaps one of the most significant of the present war, has begun in Washington. The whole army staff, a part of the cabinet, and a majority of both houses of Congress are in favor of Senator Chamberlain's proposed bill, making general military service compulsory. Heretofore, military service has been compulsory only to certain classes, while others have been exempt.

Advocates of this bill say that America can never have a truly great army so long as it adheres to the present highly incompetent draft system, for it does not distribute evenly the burden of military service, and it does not tend to create a sense of national duty, such as should be felt by everyone, that every man owes his country his strength and his life; the tendency now is to evade this duty if possible.

Chamberlain's bill is not yet in proper form for presentation in Congress. Thus 2far, it merely cites the example set by Europe, where compulsory military service is general everywhere, which alone enables defense against invasion. However, the general draft system is different in various countries. In Germany, for example, it was expanded to such a degree that seventeen-year-olds as well as sixty-year-olds were drafted into the army, depending, of course, upon whether their physical condition was such as to permit army service. In Austria-Hungary, men between the ages of nineteen and fifty-five were taken for army service, while in England the age limit was forty-three. In spite of its limited conscription, England, its colonies included, managed to raise an army and a naval force, including the crews of merchant vessels, of 7,500,000. If America used the same age limit, it could raise an army of over fifteen million men.

Is such an army necessary, however? According to President Wilson, who is decidedly opposed to the measure and who will use all his strength to help defeat it when it is placed before Congress, general compulsory military service instead of the present limited draft system is not only unnecessary but would actually be harmful to the country. In the first place, says the President, it would change America into a militaristic nation, which would not only affect 3our national economy but would reflect in our political relations with other countries, which would see in a militaristic United States a powerful threat to their own existence. In the second place such a measure would completely disrupt commercial and industrial activity in the whole country for those who should be peacefully working in the shops or attending to their business would be forced to carry a rifle. President Wilson will do what he can to bring about the defeat of the proposed bill.

But there are other reasons why general compulsory military service is superfluous. In the first place, an innovation of this sort would weaken rather than strengthen the United States Army, not in numbers, of course, but in quality. All wars have proved that young soldiers, not old soldiers, win battles. If European nations have raised the military age limit to sixty, it is from frantic necessity. The United States, even if it should find it-self under the most difficult conditions, will never have to face such a necessity, for no coalition could possibly throw so great a force on American shores that fifteen million soldiers would be necessary for our defense. America need send to France no more than three million men at the very most, 4so that even in this respect general compulsory military service is superfluous.

Let us, however, take examples from American history. The largest army that the United States ever put into the field was the Union Army during the Civil War. In this army of 3,300,000, were men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. There were over a million eighteen-year-old soldiers and almost a million seventeen-year-olds. To give the true characteristics of this army, we will add that it actually contained children, for there were 100,000 fourteen-year-old boys. And this army was victorious, defeating the army of the South, which consisted of older men.

From the above it can be seen that America does not need general compulsory military service. The present war strength of the United States Army is about 1,500,000 men. Of the first class, that is, men between the ages of twenty-one and thirty-one, about a million or more recruits can be called. Taking those who reached the age of twenty-one by June 5, 1917, the United States could have 700,000 new recruits yearly; that is, over 1,400,000 for the years 1917 and 1918. Altogether, then, without resorting to general conscription, America 5can have an army of 3,800,000 men this year, which should be entirely sufficient. If it is taken into consideration that in case of necessity, nineteen and twenty-year-clds can be taken into the army, then without effort, the United States can raise an army the size of England's, that is, over seven million men. Why should America need more soldiers? This question cannot be answered by those who are in favor of Chamberlain's bill.

Thus, everyone ought to support President Wilson's stand on this question, and help him defeat the Chamberlain Bill, provided it is introduced in Congress.