grace to his dormant tissue. Wholesome living, abundant exercise and orderly habits have imparted a healthy color to his skin and clearness to his eyes. The nature of his occupation has inculcated in him a spirit of confidence and self reliance which make him a more forceful member of any profession he may choose to enter.

Morally he is not neglected, though in this respect his education is gained in great part by absorption from his environment. He is a member of an organized disciplined family, the comfort and security of which is dependent upon the honesty and integrity of the individuals composing it. The community character of the soldier's life furnishes abundant opportunity for petty dishonesty and it is the knowledge of this insecurity which leads soldiers to guard so jealously their common interests. By localization the insidious character of crime is more indelibly impressed upon them and thereby rendered more abhorrent. In his daily duty the soldier learns that truthfulness is necessary to its proper performance. He comes to realize that the slightest deviation from the truth on the part of others may lead him into error and consequent punishment or may endanger his own and his comrades' safety. As a matter of self protection he demands undeviating truth from others and the habit of truth telling insinuates itself upon him until it becomes not a matter of expediency but one of natural inclination.

As a school wherein may be fostered and developed every sentiment of patriotism, nothing can surpass the army with its traditions antedating even the republic itself. In his daily life the soldier treads the same paths over which countless heroes have passed before him. His daily associations are constant reminders of the achievements of those whose names live in the history of a grateful land. The uniform he wears has become a symbol of courageous devotion to the principles of the country he serves. In a measure he feels that he is an active factor in the making of history and in that history he takes the personal pride of the artisan in his work. Nor does he abandon the habits formed or sentiments developed in the service when he separates from it. In a modified form, adapted to the circumstances of his new life and surrounding, the army

habits and training cling inseparately to him. It may be that he will never care to re-enter the service, but there will never come a time when the fluttering of his country's flag or the sight of his discarded uniform will not awaken in his mind cherished recollections of his military service or stir in his breast emotions which better fit him for the life of a loyal citizen.

Eventually the ex-soldier becomes the head of a family and the influence of his army training is extended to the domestic circle. His children are reared in an atmosphere of cleanliness, order and discipline. In the child is reflected whatever of patriotic sentiments the father may cherish and in the unconscious hero-worship of the child these sentiments are exaggerated and intensified. The number of men so trained and returned to civil life, while not large, is nearly unvarying and in time is sufficient to constitute a considerable factor in society. In round numbers a third of the army annually leaves the ranks to engage anew in civil pursuits. In the course of ten years an army of nearly two hundred thousand men is distributed throughout the land to enter the life of thousands of communities. If we are to believe that a majority of them assume the responsibilities of the citizen in all that it implies of domestic relations and public-spirited effort, the influence of the army is seen to cover a large and comprehensive area.

Of the class who do not so return to civil life, but who remain in the army to make a life work of it, the army and the country have no reason to be other than proud. In the nature of things there must be in every generation a proportion of misfits which through misfortune or lack of advantages finds itself left behind in the race of life. Such a fate does not necessarily imply a lack of worth or ambition, but, too often, simply of opportunity. Many such find places in the army and in the profession of arms find a congenial calling which, while not brilliant or remunerative, is honest and honorable. In it they are respectable members of society, leading honorable independent lives and standing ready in emergency to give value received to the country they serve.

Among those returned to civil life from the army is a class

to which disparaging reference is too often made. I refer to those unfortunates who have dishonorably terminated their connection with the service. The published statistics of this class can hardly be accepted as a fair criterion of the amount of crime in the army, for the reason that many such discharges are the results of purely military offenses and are without criminal significance. In the majority of cases the punishment is the result of an inability to adjust the previously conceived ideas of personal freedom to the moderate restraint of army discipline. Many of this class realize when too late the error into which they have fallen and would gladly re-enter the service if permitted to do so. In every military prison there are scores of young men who would undoubtedly serve honorably and with benefit to the army, did the military code permit of their re-enlistment. The majority of those returning thus to civil life bear no resentment toward the military service and realize fully that they have only suffered the penalty of their own indiscretions.

It is with a degree of trepidation that I approach what seems to me to be a logical deduction. The advocacy of anything savoring of compulsory military service is a challenge to American sentiment and tradition. Commercial enterprise is quick to brook interference with its progress, the more especially, when such interference is not productive of at least prospective financial benefit. The average American is intolerant of anything which restrains him in the full exercise of his own free will. Such a sentiment combined with lack of education and its accompanying disadvantages can only result in the spirit of lawlessness with which the public is already too familiar. The protection of life and property in the large cities has developed into a situation with which the police facilities seem unable to cope. The problem might better be solved by preventative than by punitive measures. If a term of compulsory military service of one, two or even three years would result in the physical and moral improvement of the individual; if it would inspire him with a more profound respect for and obedience to the law; then commercial interest might well afford the temporary inconvenience of such a separation in view of the advantages to be derived from the service of a

superior class of trained and disciplined members of society. If we are to believe that sturdy physiques and sound personal principles are valuable assets in the manhood of a nation, the conclusion seems to point persistently to something akin, at least, to the military training of youth.

The army is an expensive institution whose periods of active service are, happily, separated by longer periods of peace. Its maintenance during such periods of military inactivity is a question of political expediency which does not permit of argument. Its function during such periods cannot justly be characterized as one of passivity, for it is ever busied with careful, conscientious preparation wherein it can never hope to attain a permanent degree of perfection, but must content itself with the molding of raw material into more perfect manhood and distributing the results amid the ranks of society.

EMINENCE OF THE AMERICAN ARMY.

BY J. C. TUTT.

[J. C. Tutt, historian, born Warrenton, Va., March 31, 1851; graduated from Caldwell academy in St. Louis; has devoted his life to the study of history and the writing of articles on political and historical topics for magazines and newspapers, and has for several years written a weekly historical article for the St. Louis GlobeDemocrat.]

In a recent debate on the army reorganization bill in the British house of lords, Sir Garnet Wolseley characterized the American army as the best in the world. That certainly is an extraordinary declaration. We haven't many soldiers and never made any great pretense at military training, yet here by the testimony of the first strategist in Europe, who knows all systems, our army is given the proud position of pre-eminence. To grasp the meaning of this assertion one must contemplate the vast military forces of the continental European nations. All that is requisite with them to precipitate war, aside from financial preliminaries, is the mobilization and the forward movement of troops. Equipment, discipline and a numerical strength approaching a war footing are kept up continuously. The government rests on the army. We saw how quickly two nations could appear in battle when Germany and France fought and how profoundly both governments were affected by the result.

When a young man Garnet Wolseley participated in the campaign of the Crimea and has been at the front in all the memorable military movements of his country. He is a soldier tried and true and is intellectually equal to great occasions. The reason his record is not more brilliant is that his country is insular and is not a land fighting power. But he has the keenest possible appreciation of soldierly qualities. He knows what they are and what kind distinguish men as superior. On this point his testimony is of the highest order. There is probably not another man living so well qualified to speak. His knowledge, his experience and his personal observation all combine to make him a star witness on the merit of