EXPOSE INJUSTICE OF OPERATION OF DRAFT ACT DURING WARTIME

"Just as the Republican victory in Maine this year was a tremendous expression of the people's choice of a straight-forward Republican administration, and all that it means toward the issues and problems of today," said the Honorable Mr. Frederic H. Parkhurst, Governor-Elect of Maine, yesterday, in a special interview for the CRIMSON, "so am I looking for another such expression in the coming national elections." Mr. Parkhurst was at one time a member of the Maine House of Representatives and before his election this year was President of the Maine Senate. He also served many years as Chairman of the Republican State Committee in his home state, which has just given him the largest vote ever polled for a Chief-Executive. Governor Parkhurst pointed out, however, that this vote was a Republican vote--"there was no Parkhurst in it," he ended.

"The real issue in this campaign is the conduct of the Democratic administration," continued the Governor, "and the real question before the people is whether they wish to continue the Democratic administration, or replace it with a constitutional, efficient and unsectional Republican administration. As this is the true issue and question, I feel that it is imperative that the public, and all the men of your University, should have full knowledge of the action of the War Department in the methods it employed to make effective the draft enforcement.

Did Not Use Census Figures

"In arriving at the population of each state the War Department did not ascertain the population through the Census Bureau, as provided. The Census Bureau would have given the population in 1917 for each state, basing its figures upon the growth as determined by previous census figures. Instead the War Department arbitrarily and unlawfully used the registration in each state as a basis from which to calculate the population upon which the apportionment of the various draft calls was determined.

"Using the following 11 representative Northern States: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota as examples of the application of this incorrect and vicious estimate of population, we find that the estimated population of these states, based by the War Department upon the draft registration, and used for alloting draft quotas, was 48,306,543. The census returns disclose that these 11 states actually had in 1917 a population of 12,764,423, or, in other words, the War Department had credited to them 5,542,220 more people in 1917 than they actually had within their borders.

Southern States Underestimated

"Now on turning to a representative group of Southern states, namely; Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi in which figures are available, it appears that the War Department estimated these states as having a population of 11,416,415, upon which to base draft quotas. The actual population of these six states in 1910, seven years earlier, was 12,325,472, and the actual population in 1917 was 13,202,333. These figures disclose that the War Department estimate was 1,785,818 less than the actual population shown by the census.

"To show more clearly the application these figures have to the draft quotas of the individual states, I will give the figures as they stand in Massachusetts case. The War Department credited Massachusetts with 233,506. more people in 1917 than the state contained. This meant that 9,340 men were taken out of Massachusetts above what her true quota was. On the other hand, though I wish to emphasize that I do not mean any reflection upon the patriotism of the Southern men, South Carolina gave 9959 men less than she should have given under the draft calls, and this parallel can be traced through the other states I have mentioned. If this injustice had continued four years instead of two, the just resentment against this infamous procedure on the part of the War Department would in deed be overwhelming. Yet this sectional application of the Selective Draft Act is typical of what the Democratic administration did during its period of power and illustrates what we may expect if the Democrats are continued in power at Washington.

"Apart from the present political situation, however, I would like particularly to say to college men that what I consider one of the greatest factors in modern life, is their growing participation in politics, not as theorizing, talking, impractical 'parlor' politicians, but constructive, clear-sighted thinkers and doers. The college man can bring to politics the knowledge, the experience, and, above all, the personality that is needed in order that the most helpful and efficient service can be rendered.