Senator RICHARD RUSSELL, Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. MERCER, PA., February 20, 1963. MY DEAR MR. RUSSELL: I request the right to submit the enclosed statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee to be included in the hearings on H.R. 2438 (draft extension). Thank you. RUTH C. SMITH. STATEMENT OF RUTH C. SMITH Mr. Chairman and committee members, please consider the following as some of the reasons why H.R. 2438 (draft extension) should not be passed. I am a former high school teacher and have done graduate work in education. (1) Educators know the psychological effect on high school boys of the present draft law. Many boys cannot be interested in even thinking of a possible vocation because of the draft. In a discussion recently, a high school boy said, "I'm sure many couples are, getting married in order to beat the draft." According to U.S. Chamber of Commerce figures, one young man in every six is avoiding service in this way. (2) Fewer but better trained men are needed for today's army. We need, as Mr. Adlai Stevenson says, "a volunteer system which calls on young men not to endure 2 years of service because they have to but to choose it for a longer period." Senator Mike Mansfield says "an armed service of professionals cannot be built by conscription." If 80 percent of the men in uniform will never be fighting why train them to fight? If civilian skills are required, these men could get such training without serving time in the armed services. (3) The present draft law discriminates. Less than half the young men of draft age are actually seeing military service. This is because of deferments granted to students and to vital workers in agriculture and industry. When one adds those who are avoiding the draft by getting married and on grounds of physical and mental unfitness (the last group is said to be one out of every three), one realizes that those who are left are discriminated against. (4) The draft has caused a moral problem. For every youth whom military service has bettered, there is one who has thrown all moral principles overboard This may be because it forces upon youth at an early age decisions which they are not mature enough to make. The position of the National Council of Churches is: "The Christian church encourages incentives for freedom of conscience, freedom of vocational choice, and the integrity of family life. Universal military training encroaches on all three of these fundamental human values." (5) President Kennedy's proposed Domestic Peace Corps could take the place of the draft. Volunteers would serve in social work life hospitals, mental health centers, schools, on Indian reservations, in city slums, or poor rural areas. Others might work on preservation of natural resources. With the proper motivation by civilian personnel, youth in this national corps would come to the realization that they, each one, can help carry out President Kennedy's inaugural challenge: "Not what my country can do for me, but what I can do for my country." In doing such work many youth would receive training for a vocation. (6) The Army's offer to train youth for a vocation can be questioned on at least two counts. First, many youth who enlist must wait a year or more before they are offered the courses promised them when they entered the service. In the second place, why should this vocational training be directed by the military at all? Isn't it because the military is trying to usurp control? President Eisenhower's words before he left office showed how greatly he feared this usurpation of the military when he said: "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex.' (7) It is up to you, members of this committee, to vote against the draft bill in order that our country may return to a government by civilian control, a government by elected representation, rather than a military dictatorship. WILLIAMSBURG, VA., March 3, 1963. Senator RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR RUSSELL: Enclosed please find a statement on S. 846 which I hope you will insert in the hearings concerning that bill. Gratefully, STATEMENT OF DABNEY STUART DABNEY STUart. I would like to express my opposition to S. 846, a bill to extend the induction provisions of the Universal Military Training and Service Act. It is my belief that peacetime conscription is contrary to the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. It also seems fundamentally at odds with the attempt to maintain peace: it is self-defeating for a nation to concentrate its efforts for peace by building a powerful military force, even if this force is euphemized out of its destructive purpose by such terms as "deterrent." Finally, I believe that the defeat of this bill will contribute to the concrete possibility of disarmament on a multilateral scale, and as an indication of this Nation's willingness to take steps toward such an end is eminently desirable. From a practical standpoint I think two reasons recommend the defeat of this bill. First, the effectiveness of young men in America as citizens will be enhanced if this chief obstacle to their life plans is removed and the nature of their military service placed more in their hands than it can be when a draft system is in operation. Secondly, and of more importance, if the U.S. Army is placed in a position similar to the Navy, Air Force, and Marines, that it will be forced to improve the structure and activity of its organization. In so doing it will of necessity strengthen itself internally as well as insure the chance of getting better men to serve it. If the Army were not sure of recruits it would be obliged to offer potential career men better opportunities than it does. Positively, in place of the draft I would suggest some kind of service whose aim is more directly and sensibly directed toward maintaining and insuring peace-services similar to the Peace Corps and the Friends' educational exchange program. Though this is a naive approach to the problem which in a very large sense ignores the facts of history, I feel it is preferable to a continuation of the cynicism history teaches, which, if present indications are to be believed, is tantamount to suicide. MADISON, WIs., March 1, 1963. Hon. RICHARD RUSSELL, Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, SENATOR RUSSELL: Enclosed please find the statement for inclusion in the hearings on H.R. 2438, a bill to extend the induction provisions of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, which I requested the right to submit in my letter of February 20. I was not aware that the hearings would so hastily be moved up, but I sent this in as quickly as possible. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF ROBERT WHITFORD ROBERT WHITFORD. I should like to be heard as against the proposed extension of H.R. 2438, a bill to extend the induction provisions of the Universal Military Training and Service Act. My reasons for being against the extension of this bill include (1) A desire to see a lessening of the paranoiac thinking prevalent in our country's dealings with foreign nations, especially those associated with the Communist bloc; (2) A desire to see the young men of our country planning and living their lives without the threat of forced participation in our present policies of militarism; and (3) A desire to see the size of our Armed Forces shrink, giving to the rest of the world an indication of: (a) the lessening of our above-mentioned paranoiac thinking; and (b) the sincerity of our continual protestations of the desirability of peace and the relaxation of world tensions. Therefore, I ask that you please give this bill the utmost of consideration and listen to all relevant testimony in order that we might prevent the draft from becoming a way of life instead of an emergency wartime measure. Hon. RICHARD RUSSELL, OLD TAPPAN, N.J., March 13, 1963. Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR RUSSELL: On behalf of writers to the Voice of the People column of the Record, a newspaper published in Hackensack, N.J., I request the right to submit the enclosed statement in lieu of personal testimony to the hearings on draft extension. I am enclosing 25 copies of the statement simultaneously with this request in order that it be on time for possible inclusion with the record of the hearings. The names of other writers besides myself to the Voice columns will be transmitted to your committee within a few days. I am compiling a more complete listing. Very sincerely yours, HENRY KOCH. STATEMENT BY WRITERS TO THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE COLUMN OF THE RECORD, A DAILY NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED IN HACKENSACK, N.J. To the Armed Services Committee: A draft is an interference with personal liberty. The subject is directed by Selective Service to give up his usual mode of life, remove to a camp, place himself under a rigid routine or orders. This is contrary to individual freedom. Those individualistic young men insisting on their basic natural rights are set apart from others. Refusal to obey the compulsory program leads to a term in prison. The minimum sentence of a year and a day is still long enough to inflict loss of voting and other citizenship rights. Society is witnessing the degrading spectacle of constitutional government punishing those who by their acts uphold constitutional liberties. Since it holds the weapon of induction over every family with male children, a permanent selective service organization is tyranny. Officials should not be permitted to compel the livelihood of young people. This abuse can be corrected by ending the draft. The military effectiveness of the armed services has been impaired by compulsory service. Since coercion and not personal choice is the basis of filling the ranks, the morale is not up to that of a volunteer professional army. The Cordiner Committee, composed of businessmen and engineers, reported in 1957 that the men were counting the days until they got out. There were many more available than required to do the job. The officers live a life of exalted ease from the work of orderlies and male servants. Because of short-term service with constant labor turnover, valuable equipment is mishandled. The Cordiner report estimated machinery worth 5 billions of dollars would be saved by a smaller force trained over a longer period. It should be evident that the United States is limited in aiding development of a free society abroad if an enormous apparatus of oppression is maintained at home. The Defense Establishment of over 3 million people and $50 billion annual budo et operating under military bureaucratic auspices undermines the free economic system. This organization supplied with cheap labor by virtue of draft legislation stifles personal initiative and promotes the pattern of the welfare state. The majority of the 14 million persons in U.S. military service during World War II were in noncombat divisions. Since 90 percent never used combat training, there is no defense need for large numbers of men acquiring boot camp training. With present adequate transportation, a small combat army with conventional arms can effectively defend any part of this Nation. For oversea operation these units could be serviced by civilian groups under contract, such as the Seabees of World War II. Chairman RUSSELL. Do you have anything further, Mr. Secretary? Mr. PAUL. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman RUSSELL. All right, sir, we thank you for your presence here. We will now turn to the nongovernmental witnesses. In the interests of fairness, these have been listed, so far as the organizations are concerned, alphabetically. That brings us first to the presentation by the American Civil Liberties Union. They are represented here by Mr. Lawrence Speiser, director of the Washington office. Have a seat, Mr. Speiser. You are familiar, of course, with our hope that you can present your views in 10 minutes and let the rest of your statement be included in the record? STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE SPEISER, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON OFFICE, THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION Mr. SPEISER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chairman RUSSELL. You may proceed. Mr. SPEISER. My name is Lawrence Speiser. I am the director of the Washington office of the Ameriican Civil Liberties Union. My appearance here today is concerned with the section of the Universal Military Training Service Act which provides for exemption for those who are conscientiously opposed to war. The present section, section 6(j), provides: Nothing contained in this title *** shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combatant training and service in the Armed Forces of the United States who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form. Religious training and belief in this connection means an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code. [Emphasis added.] This section was not always defined in this fashion. The "Supreme Being clause" was placed in the act after the decision of United States v. Kauten, 133 F. 2d 703 (2d Cir. 1943) in which Justice Hand ruled that a conscientious objector need not believe in a Supreme Being in order to qualify for deferment under the Selective Service Act. In his opinion Judge Hand stated: * It is unnecessary to attempt a definition of religion; the content of the term is found in the history of the human race and is incapable of compression into a few words. Religious belief arises from a sense of the inadequacy of reason as a means of relating the individual to his fellow man and to his universe * * It is a belief finding expression in a conscience. *** [It] may justly be regarded as a response of the individual to an inward mentor, call it conscience or God, that is for many persons at the present time the equivalent of what has always been thought a religious impulse. Recognition of this obligation (of conscience) moved the Greek poet Menander to write almost 2,400 years ago, "Conscience is a God to all mortals" *** Similarly, it was pointed out by Judge Denman in his dissent in Berman v. United States, 156 F. 2d 377 (9th Cir. 1946), that many of the great religious faiths have no God including the Chinese religion of Tao and also Buddhism in its earliest years (19 Encyclopedia Britannica [14th ed. 111].) Since Congress amended the Universal Military Training and Service Act to include the statement: Religious training and belief in this connection means an individial's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code there has been a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961). In that case the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held that a Maryland constitutional provision requiring a belief in the existence of God as a qualification for holding any public office or position of honor in Maryland violated the freedom of belief and religion of an applicant for a notary public's position and could not be enforced against him. In that case, the Court, speaking through Justice Black, stated: We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against nonbelievers, and neither can aid those religious based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs We contend that in the light of the decision of Torcaso v. Watkins, the present "Supreme Being clause" of the Universal Military Training Act is unconstitutional and should be deleted. This would place the law, we feel, back in the status that it was with Judge Hand's opinion, in which, even though you retain the religious training and belief requirement, this would be interpreted to include those whose beliefs are essentially political, sociological, or philosophical, or merely a personal code. To require that a man's objection to participation in war be the result of religious training and belief alone fails to admit the plain fact that of the millions of our citizens who do not subscribe to the tenets of an organized religion or to the belief in a Supreme Being, there are those whose objection to personal participation in all war is as deeply felt and as unyieldingly held on conscientious grounds as those whose beliefs spring from a more formal religious conviction. Statistics concerning conscientious objectors in World War II reveal that a good number of Americans were included in this category. Of the approximately 18,000 persons who were imprisoned or who served in civilian public service camps, more than 1,500 were nonreligious conscientious objectors. There were also many others who claimed exemption on religious grounds but really objected to military service on the basis of personal conviction. The present law recognizes the fact that men will in good faith refuse to bear arms or to participate in any war. It fails to recognize, however, that a man's conscience, whether or not rooted in a belief in a Supreme Being, deserves the recognition and respect of the community regardless of disagreement with the source of his conviction. To recognize the principle, but to restrict its application, in effect sanctions state-prescribed dogma. Certainly the Armed Forces cannot, and possibly dare not, probe into the motivations of all those who accept the mandate to be inducted or volunteer in lieu thereof. At least, in matters of conscience, no more than in matters of speech, the |