« AnteriorContinuar »
tions of that paper should be sent to all of the colleges represented in the other association, and a canvass should be made as to their probable attitude on the questions involved.
Accordingly the chairman of the executive committee, Dr. Thompson, on his return to Columbus, prepared a copy of the recommendations of the paper and sent it out to some sixty-five institutions, and requested their consideration and reply.
Some twenty-six of them answered, and those replies were in due time collected, and I was permitted to look them over and make a study of the opinions. I did so, made a digest of the answers, and turned it over to Dr. Thompson, who has used it with the executive committee.
This organization is in a rather peculiar situation in the fact that while the work originated here, it has been taken out of our hands, so far as further execution just at this stage is concerned.
Therefore I can not, perhaps, present the results of these conclusions here which go into the matter more in detail. However, when the digest of the conclusions which in the main supported quite strongly the recommendations of the original paper, stronger in some items than in others, but in the main supporting them quite strongly, went to the executive committee of the other association, it was taken up and acted upon in an affirmative manner.
At the same time I took the liberty of making two recommendations to your executive committee, simply as an expression of my own personal opinion as to what the situation warranted at this time.
For the information of this body I might say that during the past year there have been two bills presented in Congress looking towards increasing the quota of army officers available for detail as teachers.
One of these bills places no limit upon the number of officers who may be detailed. The other makes the limit 125, which is an increase of 25 over the present existing law.
In addition to prescribing this limit, the second bill, which is the Senate bill, specifically removes the difficulty which the War Department now finds itself in in the matter of the detail of officers, and says: “One or more officers" may be detailed.
There is a ruling of the Judge Advocate General of the Army to the effect that under the existing law the President can detail but one officer. The Senate bill removes that disability and increases the number of officers available. It is, therefore, a step towards some of the benefits which are indicated in the paper last year as being needed. This bill has passed the Senate and has come to the Military Committee of the House of Representatives. It has been before them for some time. They have not acted upon it, and I think they will not act upon it unless they receive some distinct impetus, during the balance of this session. I think, however, if some impetus could be given to the matter, it would be possible to have the measure go through.
The House bill has not been passed by the House, so that its introduction is not a matter of great moment.
In connection with the Senate bill, there is one phase of the matter which seems to me quite important, namely, that there is nothing in the bill to indicate any relation between the number of officers detailed and the number of students to be taught, and it is conceivable that, the bill being passed, the War Department might detail more than one officer to some small schools and might neglect to give any additional help to some of the larger schools.
It seems desirable, therefore, that the Senate bill, as it now stands,
should be amended, if possible, to introduce this idea of relation be. tween the size of the military command and the number of officers detailed for instruction purposes. Accordingly, I drafted such an amendment. I can not recall the exact wording of it, but it provides that in a battalion of 500 students or less, one officer shall be detailed; for more than 500 or less than 1,000, two officers, and so on, on the basis of one officer per 500 or fraction thereof.
I obtained from the War College a digest or statement of the num. ber of institutions and the number of officers now detailed,, edited upon the basis of last year's information, and find by going over the records carefully that there would be nine institutions, which would receive one or more officer each if this bill were to pass with that amendment, and there would be some five or six more institutions which would receive two more officers each, and one institution would receive three more officers, having a regiment in excess of 1,500 men.
The total number of officers required to fill up the various commands, on the basis of one officer per 500 men, would only require 22 more officers than are now detailed. Probably the number would be increased somewhat on this year's registration, but that is what it would have been last year.
The law making 25 more officers available, and 22 being required at once, it would seem that there was a very small margin for growth there; but as a matter of fact, I am informed that the number of officers out of the 100 available appointments has never been full. There is a margin of anywhere from 10 to 15 at the present time.
The executive committee of the other associations will this morning recommend to that association a resolution to this effect: That the executive committee be instructed to use all efforts for the passage of this Senate bill and this resolution, at this session of Congress.
The other five items mentioned in the recommendations of last year, were not so enthusiastically supported as this one point of a further increase in the number of officers was. Therefore, inasmuch as there is no legislation before Congress at this time on any of the other points, and inasmuch as they were not supported as strongly as this point was, it seemed unwise to propose any actual legislation on those five points at this time.
However, the executive committee has agreed to report a resolution to this effect: That a special committee shall be appointed to take this whole subject under consideration, the items of last year's recommendations and the reports of the colleges thereon, and be instructed to frame, during the current year, legislation and bring it back to the association for further discussion next year.
If this is done, therefore, there will be before next year's meeting a more or less complete program of military advance for discussion.
In this general connection I might say that our college of engineering at the Ohio State University has taken up for consideration during the year past the question of a general engineering course, the idea being to frame such a course as would provide a solid foundation of the sciences underlying all engineering, and then allow a suitable amount of elective time in which a young man desiring to make an engineer of himself, but not desiring to follow any of the specific courses now offered, would find the place to put in some thirty hours' specialized work along any line he desires to follow. Our committee has been working on that, and has made no final report; but they did do this much: They gave an outline of such a course for the first two years, and in the case of a student who desires to pursue military electives, they made a suggested course show
ing what we could offer to a student who desires to go through college along the line recommended last year, making military matters a rather special study. I have the text of such a course here, and while I shall not take the time to read it in full, I shall perhaps point out to the society the general tenor of it. It is a four year course. Here is the statement of the faculty on it:
“We recommend, therefore, that this faculty now approve this tentative curriculum as what this university is willing to do toward increasing military instruction, and in order that it may be used in conference with members of Congress and representatives of the War Department and others in securing the passage of such laws as will permit the detailing of more assistants to our military departments.”
Proposed military curriculum in the first year: The usual courses in mathematics, chemistry, language, English, drawing, together with gymnasium and drill as now given. In the summer session certain shops are to be taken.
In the second year mathematics, a five hour course during the year; chemistry, a four-hour course during the year; physics, a five-hour course during the year; and engineering drawing, a three-hour course during the year, and in the summer session a six weeks course in the army camp or its equivalent.
In the third year the student takes mechanics, a five-hour course through the year; physics, a four-hour course through the year, and takes up civil engineering, survey and railroad work, five and four hours, respectively, in the two semesters; political science, three hours during the year, and the first of the advanced military instruction, military science and the art of war, three hours; military strategy, two hours. And in this year he will be expected to drill his command as an officer. The first year he is a private, the next year a non-com, and the third year an officer. Again he takes a summer session in the army camp.
In the fourth year he has civil engineering and topographic drawin, geology, civil engineering, topographic surveying, electrical engineering, fundamental courses, and elementary law, three hours; military law, three hours; international law, three hours; milltary history of the United States, three hours; military science, fortification and entrenchments, two hours; military science, commissary, transportation and sanitation, five hours;
last year of drill
an officer. That makes a total of about thirty hours of military work, and about one hundred and ten hours of other work, of which about ninety to ninety-five hours represents fundamental studies in mathematics, chemistry and engineering drawing, and the technical engineering which is given is the fundamental civil engineering of surveying and of calculation of stresses in the framing of bridge work and work of that sort.
That gives the idea of the faculty of our college as to what a course in military engineering should reasonably be.
I think you will observe, even from the casual reading of it, that it simply means the creation of no new studies excepting the fact that they are taught in the military line. Every college of engineering has all of those engineering subjects; every college of arts has all of the law subjects. All that would be required to make such a course possible would be military instructors who could give instruction in strategy and the art of war, fortification work and that sort of thing. Every army officer who is in charge of a battalion would presumably be able to do that, if he had time. It is simply a question, then, of getting more officers, so that they may charge themselves with the responsi
bility of taking these courses; and when such courses are given we can logically expect a few young men to take such courses from their interest in them and on the chance of getting into the army; and in due course of time, if Congress passes legislation by which these young men have a natural and legitimate outlet into the army or into the reserve, the courses will undoubtedly become more popular.
I think that is all I have to say, gentlemen; but I happen to notice that Major Dapray, of the military department of the Maryland College is here, and perhaps we could hear a word from the Major along the general line of this matter.
CHAIRMAN TYLER.—May we hear from Major Dapray?
MAJOR DAPRAY.—Dean Orton in his address before the association at the Willard last year presented the arguments in favor of military instruction in colleges as forcibly as that question could be presented, in my opinion; and everything that he has recommended is certainly deserving of very thoughtful consideration. Everything he has said this morning appeals very strongly to the thoughtful stu. dent of this question.
In immediate connection with the remarks of Dean Orton, how. ever, I want to suggest this consideration particularly, as I believe he is in a position largely of guide in these matters, certainly the recognized champion of what ought to be done: that when it is proposed that we detail more than one officer to institutions, we should graduate these institutions according to numbers.
For ex ample, an institution, as I understand it, that has 500 or certain other numbers may be entitled to an additional officer.
The object of assigning an additional officer to any institution of this kind, as I understand it, would be because of the necessity for additional instruction service.
You must take into consideration the fact that at some of these institutions the time alloted to the military department for its work is very meager.
For example, speaking of our own institution, which I am not representing formally today—I am only speaking in my personal capacity-I may say that under the new regime, that is working very successfully, we have one hour per day alloted to the military de partment. There may be, however, times when a part of the drill hour is taken for some other purposes and classes are taken away.
What I would suggest to Dean Orton to consider, is this matter, with his conferes, would be that this additional officer should be allotted to institutions wherever needed; and it seems to me there could be some fair rule of procedure, some intelligent rule, by which both the War Department and the institution concerned could be guided and controlled.
For example, if I am out drilling in the open air on the field a battalion, whether it be of 300 as we have, or 500 as is proposed for one man, or even 750, I must give my time and attention there to the work that is in hand on the parade ground.
The men who are to be instructed in something else during that same hour, if that is the only hour allowed and if, as at our institution, we have a military period limited; you will observe that one officer can only give his time and attention to that which is embraced within the whole hour in the open, and there must be class work during the same hour.
If the chairman will permit me and Dean Orton will allow me, I will say that there is one feature of this subject which has not been
submitted or brought out; it has not been developed even amongst military men in the discussion of the question.
Last year, with the approval of the higher military authorities, and in my own individual capacity, I studied up some features of this question and submitted what, I think, was submitted for the first time, a proposition which should appeal to you gentlemen. All of the laws governing this question of military instruction in the schools may be found in the little pamphlet which is distributed on the tables in the Willard Hotel, and some here, containing the laws governing this subject.
You will observe that in the law as it passed in 1890 and in 1907, which was an amendment of the 1890 law, in both of them and in the original law of 1862, the doing of certain things are made mandatory upon the schools.
Senator Morrill himself has defined them: the farm, the workshop and the battlefield.
As far as I know, there is not that degree of military training in the schools and education contemplated by the law; there is not that degree of mechanical engineering or civil engineering contemplated by the law. The law says that not a dollar of this large appropriation shall be paid to any institution except upon the certificate of the Secretary of the Interior. If the Secretary of the Interior refuses to issue that certificate, as was done in the case of the South Carolina institution for three years, when that school went without its appropriation—the money can not be paid. It then takes a law of Congress to give to the school, to the suspended institution, the money that is due it.
The point I am coming to is this: That until now this question seems to have rested with those in the Interior Department entirely. The proposition has been made, that the President of the United States, acting for all the departments, and co-ordinating their general plans, has the right, if it may not be his duty, to listen to other departments concerned.
The laws of 1888, and other laws, have given the Secretary of War the right to go into your institutions and to supervise the military work. Every year he sends officers of the army and general staff to find out whether this kind of work is sufficient and efficient; and the time has come when it has been suggested that he might appeal to the President to consider whether his department is not concerned, and to ask that the matter be suspended in the Interior Department until it can be judged whether sufficient military instruction is being given in the schools.
Do you know that of the 92,000 students enrolled, according to the statistics of last year, there were only 22,000 of those in the military department, and only 10,000-less than 10,000—in the ag. ricultural department? To be more accurate, I will state it differently:
The agricultural departments received last year twenty-two per cent, and the engineering departments twenty-six per cent, making forty-eight per cent of this whole amount of two and a half million dollars appropriated, which is less than one-half. The military department got nothing in the allotment, according to the figures furnished by the Bureau of Military Information.
Military instruction, the military organization, the capacity to organize and to direct is closely allied with the engineer's work. I can not make the case any stronger than Dean Orton has done, but I am glad to second his effort.
CHAIRMAN TYLER.—We are very much obliged to Major Dapray for