THE NEED OF MEN

Many of the professional pacifists who oppose universal military training do so as the result of sincere convictions and lofty ideals. Others, among whom are the editors of The New Republic, favor less universal plans of defence on grounds of expediency and effectiveness. Mistaken though the CRIMSON believes such views to be, their exponents are nevertheless deserving of due respect. But what shall be said of the slackers, and it is to be feared that they are not lacking even in our colleges, who oppose military training because of a deficient sense of obligation for their country's needs? These are the men who think less of what they can give to their country than of what they can get out of their country; who, while claiming all the ample privileges and protection accorded by the American government to its citizens, prefer to think that their duties end with the payment of a certain amount of taxes.

The need of the times is for another sort of men; men, in the words of Elihu Root, "genuine, sincere, devoted; men who do not so much talk about their love of country or their passion for liberty as men that do love their country and do love their liberty so much that they are willing to give liberty to others as well as claim it for themselves; . . . men who, upon the basis of plain, practical and sensible hard work in the ordinary affairs of life, carry ever a noble idealism and a sincere capacity for self-devotion."

The 1,100 members of the regiment and the 2,200 men that took part in summer drills are sufficient proof that Harvard's stand on the question of preparedness is more than a mere hasty expression of opinion. It is an opinion which Harvard stands ready to translate, has indeed already translated, into actual deeds. Her acts no less than her words have proved that she is more than willing to bear her full share of even the most comprehensive plan for national defence.

Our correspondent of January 26 writes that if the President's speech to the Senate should prove fruitful, it might render all military preparation useless. It must be remembered, however, that the President's speech was only the most tentative of beginnings towards a policy which cannot even commence to take effect until the European War is brought to a close. In the meantime, with the outcome still trembling in the balance, ought we to omit preparations for all possible emergencies through reliance on a plan of universal peace, which even its most ardent supporters admit is at present little more than an ambitious hope? And it must also be noted that if a League to Enforce Peace does become a reality, the United States will be called upon to furnish its quota of the forces which are to police the world. Is it to be expected that other countries will deem our pitiful mobile field force of approximately 25,000 men a sufficient contribution from a nation numbering over 100,000,000 inhabitants.