DEAR

EXHIBIT 4

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL,

Washington, D. C., October 26, 1953.

Your recent communication addressed to the President concerning the establishment of liquor outlets on military installations has been referred to the Department of the Army for reply.

The traditional policy of the Department of Defense is to provide morale, welfare, and recreational activities to the extent possible at all Department of Defense installations. The maintenance of messes and clubs is a part of these activities. These messes and clubs are important centers of military community life and they provide service personnel and families with facilities similar to those enjoyed by other citizens of the United States. The sale of alcoholic beverages is one of the normal functions of the activities of such messes and clubs.

The American people in general have indicated their attitude towards the consumption of alcoholic beverages by repealing the 18th amendment. Conditiens of military service necessitate certain restrictive legislation and regulations to govern conduct of its members. The Department of Defense is opposed, however, to restrictive legislation and regulations which discriminate unnecessarily against the members of the Armed Forces and which result in the denial or curtailme nt of privileges enjoyed by other citizens. We acknowledge the fact that members of the Armed Forces, like other citizens, will occasionally desire to partake of alcoholic beverages. We prefer to make these privileges available and to control their dispensation in established officers' and noncommissioned officers' messes in an atmosphere where moderation is enforced and overindulgence is punished.

The Secretary of Defense has statutory authority to make such regulations as he may deem appropriate governing the sale, consumption, and possession of alcoholic beverages to or by members of the Armed Forces at or near any military installation. A recent Department of Defense directive established the policy in this regard for the services. Within the framework of this directive the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force have issued uniform regulations governing the control of alcoholic beverages throughout the armed services. These regulations include a provision for the sale of packaged liquors by officers' and noncommissioned officers' messes to bona fide members over 21 years of age. These regulations are adequate and their enforcement is effective. Alcoholic liquors are not obtainable through any other sources on military installations. I hope that the foregcing will tend to clarify the position of the Department of the Army in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

WM. E. BERGIN,

Major General, United States Army, The Adjutant General. The next witness is Dr. J. Raymond Schmidt, National Grand Lodge of the International Order of Good Templars.

Is the doctor here?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Dr. J. Raymond Schmidt of Washington, D. C., and I appreciate the privilege of appearing here as a citizen, as national superintendent of legislative work of the National Grand Lodge of the International Order of Good Templars and as general superintendent of the National Civic League.

My opposition to compulsory peacetime military service developed quite naturally. My paternal grandfather, Phillip Schmidt, emigrated from Germany in 1848 to escape serving in the German Army as a conscript. It is needless to say that my grandfather never returned to Germany even for a brief visit.

As the members of this committee well know, many Germans, who are not lovers of war, have come to America to enjoy our former freedom from military dictatorship. For the most part they have

been honest, law abiding, and industrious. Whether Dunker, Mennonite, or Amish, they have made a valuable contribution to our national well-being, though not willing to engage in military service. Other European nationals have also emigrated to America to live in a land free from militarism. I am thinking of the Scandinavians in our midst. It happens to be my privilege and pleasure to be affiliated in the International Order of Good Templars with many Swedish people who came to our country in the belief that their children might escape military conscription. Furthermore, a very large proportion of the people coming from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have shown their appreciation of the opportunities offered by residence in America by losing no time in taking out naturalization papers.

It is only natural, then, that the National Grand Lodge of the International Order of Good Templars, when in session at Worcester, Mass., on June 8 and 9, 1945, should adopt the following resolution:

The National Grand Lodge of the International Order of Good Templars, United States of America, in convention assembled, declare ourselves opposed to the adoption of peacetime military conscription in the United States.

We consider military conscription, in time of peace, as unnecessary, and undemocratic and a danger to peaceful relations with other nations.

When a powerful nation like the United States votes to extend the draft for another 4 years it must be because of fear of an attack from an equally powerful nation. Or can it be that we have lost faith in the ability of United Nations, of which we are a charter member, to maintain peaceful relations among the nations of the world?

As we see it, continuance of the draft can mean only that our statesmen have very little faith that the United Nations Organization can prevent future wars. Because America maintains the draft system and a mighty military machine to go with it, every nation upon the earth, small and great, will feel compelled to fall in line and be ready to go to war on a moment's notice. There can be but one result: All the peoples around the globe reduced to slavery by frightful cost of the armament race thus precipitated. Continuance of the draft and preparations for large-scale warfare, can mean but one thing, intolerable tax burdens for the American people in the years ahead.

It is unthinkable that our country will be the means of enthroning Hitlerism, not only at home but around the world. Militarism and democracy are incompatible, they cannot long live side by side in the same country. Continuance of the draft for another 4 years will hasten development of a military caste system that will undermine our liberties as thoroughly as in Germany, Italy, and Japan, where militarism completely dominated every phase of human activity.

Democracy must be preserved. Hitlerism must be killed in the United States as well as in Germany. On these objectives we are agreed.

Then let this worthy committee hasten their attainment by doing away with the draft and putting our armed services back on a voluntary and democratic basis.

That is my brief plea.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Schmidt. It is a pleasure to have your observation.

Now, the next witness is Mr. David Whatley. This gentleman spoke to me as I was going to lunch, and says he was a lawyer in

Washington and he wanted to make a statement as to the constitutionality of the draft law.

Now, we are all lawyers here, and we know on a great constitutionality question you cannot do much in 10 minutes. We suggest you file your brief, and we will listen to you briefly, then.

Mr. WHATLEY. Mr. Chairman, I cherish very much the privilege you give to obscure private citizens like myself, who in the democratic process at least have the opportunity to dissent from the prevailing opinion in most of the country.

I appreciate that the views I shall express will appear to some rather radical. So may I preface my brief remarks by saying that the Whatley family is a distinguished-my ancestors grew up in your great State of Georgia.

The CHAIRMAN. You talk to us about the law, on the constitutionality of it.

Mr. WHATLEY. I wish to point out that I am of a very conservative family, and if I differ with the distinguished chairman in these matters it is my belief that it is because I am more conservative than the distinguished chairman is in the protection of our constitutional liberties.

I wish to merely point out briefly that there is not one phrase in the Constitution which gives the Congress the authority to draft men in peacetime or in wartime. I will submit, if the chairman will permit

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything in the Constitution that prevents it?

Mr. WHATLEY. Yes, sir; a very clear prohibition.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a prepared brief?

Mr. WHATLEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, file your prepared brief and let us get right down to it.

Mr. WHATLEY. You ask if there were a clear prohibition. May I cite particularly the 13th amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the provision of the Constitution that prohibits a man from being drafted?

Mr. WHATLEY. The 13th amendment, which states:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereas the party shall have been convicted.

The CHAIRMAN. That doesn't apply. Go ahead.

Mr. WHATLEY. Shall exist within the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Go ahead now.

Mr. WHATLEY. The 11th amendment I think is quite explicit in saying that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States respectively, or to the people.

The points that I might make are covered in the brief which I shall submit. An article prepared by Prof. Harold Freeman, a distinguished professor of law of the Cornell University Law School, appearing in the Virginia Law Review.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, sir.

Time is running against you.

Mr. WHATLEY. It is a conclusion. I will submit the article for its inclusion in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

55066-55-No. 2-11

Mr. WHATLEY. Together with its footnotes, a complete brief on the subject.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. WHATLEY. I shall not detain you further, except to offer, if I may, certain alternatives. I am not so irresponsible of the Nation's security that I do not wish to offer alternatives to the present draft. The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. WHATLEY. May I please submit the following for your consideration? Before the July 1 deadline may I urge you and beg you to survey three propositions: First, that an overall survey should be made, as I have urged in past years before this and other committees, of our security requirements in the light of weapons of mass destruction, the new development, the new revolution in war making that Hanson Baldwin has so aptly described and as is so aptly described in the last article of last week's issue of U. S. News & World Report, which I urge every member of the committee to read, which gives in my opinion a completely new context of frame in which our security and manpower requirements should be considered.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your second point?

Mr. WHATLEY. Second, I urge you to consider a subcommittee investigation of the tremendous waste of our manpower all over the world not only in the Pentagon and in the administrative functions which could be pursued as adequately by civilians, but by the double duty that is being engaged in within sight of the Capitol everywhere. You have two men even on the gate at Fort Myer, and every other Army post when you need one.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, what is your third proposition?

Mr. WHATLEY. The third proposal is: I urge that the Congress give consideration to the proposal made not only by Mr. Hinshaw, but by others as a means of not only deferring temporarily but exempting men from service for the pursuit of more profitable occupations to enhance the security of the Nation.

I suggest that it might very well be achieved by giving these men 3 months' basic training during the summer months and let them retain their occupations or retain their positions as students, whether it be for 3 months, for 12 months, or 24 months.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. WHATLEY. It comes in the summer.

The CHAIRMAN. You have gotten across to the committee the three things you had in your mind in addition to the constitutionality of the draft.

Mr. WHATLEY. May I have 1 more minute to pursue 1 more point sir?

The CHAIRMAN. All right, go ahead.

Mr. WHATLEY. Now, please, I also urge you to read the testimony of two distinguished Senators in the hearings on the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1951 before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, in which Senator Edwin Johnson of Colorado and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., of Massachusetts, both proposed an alternative to the induction of at least a million-man army.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I read both of those distinguished

statements

Mr. WHATLEY. I appreciate your patience very much.

The CHAIRMAN. I read them a long time ago.

Now, thank you very much.

Now, the next and last witness is Mrs. Agnes Waters.

Mrs. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am going to talk if I may for a few minutes extemporaneously.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, ma'am.

Mrs. WATERS. I have submitted to the committee a written statement that I would like to have follow my remarks.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Go ahead now.

Mrs. WATERS. This bill is entitled "A Universal Military Training Bill."

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mrs. WATERS. Which absolutely is unconstitutional, because you cannot send our men universally all over the world to fight other people's battles. The sovereign rights of the people of the United States come first over our manpower. And our manpower is the most precious resource we have.

Now it has been brought to the attention of many investigating committees in the Senate and House that the United Nations war in Korea was mass murder of our men. The generals who were in charge testified they were not allowed to win the war in Korea.

General Van Fleet said that he could have put 300,000 prisoners in the bag and he was stopped by order; under the United Nations, there were observers there who reported back to the enemy every tactical and military move we made and controlled the war in Korea. So we were not permitted to win.

Now I have here a document that is very important. I have many documents I want to present to you.

One is the Arming of the United Nations put out by the Department of State, Bulletin No. 422-A, and here is a report from the Military Affairs Committee of the United Nations on arming the United Nations and the author of this report is the Soviet General Vasiliev. General Vasiliev armed the United Nations and planned the rattrap that 4 years later he launched in Korea. I have the evidence here that should interest the Armed Services Committee of a white paper issued by the Department of Defense of the United States Army, an intelligence report, that states that General Vasiliev launched the war over the 38th parallel in Korea.

Now, you have also before you many witnesses who have appeared before the Internal Security Committee of the Senate that testified that the State Department and the United Nations was Red from top to bottom. And yet in a treasonous, treacherous act, Mr. Truman gave our armies over to our enemies in the United Nations. Delivered them lock, stock, and barrel. And that authority was without authority from Congress. There was no authority. He had no Presidential authority to do that to us. Our armies belonged to the United States, for the preservation of this Republic, and not for any civil wars in Asia.

Now, another point that I want to make is the fact that General Van Fleet in his testimony before the Senate, on page 2024, said that when he was the administrator of the military aid in Greece that pressure was put on by the State Department to put into the Greek Cabinet a Communist regime, which was put in. Aid was withheld that we voted for here, and that we taxpayers sweated blood to provide, to supposedly arm against communism and we were arming the