raised eyebrow, denoting wonderment and perturbation at our shortcomings in this regard.

The peculiar psychology of Americanism becomes more readily understandable when we take into consideration the environment of loose restraint that is thrown around the school child, and this is reflected in many of our acts in the adult stage. But, let some sensible legislation be proposed that seeks to regulate and control some of the harmful absurdities of our modern sociological existence, and immediately a press that knows no self-restraint except that which in many instances is dictated by the barriers of power or greed, begins to clamor against what it considers unnecessary and illegal restraint. Unfortunately, an adult democracy, taught from childhood that there is no such thing as restraint, imbibes eagerly the outpourings of a sensational and demagogic daily press. An excellent example of our psychology is afforded in the insouciant attitude assumed by our citizens towards the privilege of the ballot. Notwithstanding the fact that our forefathers gave their all to accord us the right to express our wishes by the ballot, we are content to sit at home and let the underworld and its disciples do our voting for us.

So muddled have our ideas become as to that which is or is not the border line of restraint, that judges and juries frankly avow that they are nonplussed in determining the difference. Therefore it is that we find prosecutors continually bewailing that they can get no convictions in our courts in cases of flaring misdemeanors. And to bring a case to the court, simply signifies in many instances an acquittal induced by some political protector. The press of today in many cities has been clamoring most vociferously, for reasons which ought to be only too evident, against the enactment of prohibition. Would that this same press that is howling to a public whose minds are obsessed with strange ideas of freedom, were equally as bold to point out facts which are easily available as to the connection between the use of alcohol and the unmentionable hideous perversions that result only from an alcohol-soaked brain and its degenerate offspring.

These instances are simply cited to illustrate the connecting

links between looseness in disciplinary methods when the child is under the hands of the educator and in the malleable stage, and during the adult stage, when the individual is following the sociologic proclivities that have been fostered in his early childhood.

Giving due credit to the factors of heredity, psychology teaches us that in the human brain, intelligence and sentiment are closely interwoven, and that from this combination there spring desires according to the caliber and character of the fibre involved. Obviously then, it is a mistake to feel, as educators do today, that intelligence can be trained at the school, leaving the sentiments and desires to the parents. Here, incidentally, could also, by this very token, be shown the fallacy of the attitude adopted by presentday education toward the question of sex hygiene; but this does not concern, directly at least, the heading of our essay, so we pass it by. Here again, we hasten to make clear our idea of what form discipline should not assume. One only too often in the home circle observes parents admonishing and reproving their offspring in an irritable manner or in a mournful and deprecating tone of voice. This, we venture to assert is simply giving vent to an irritable disposition, of which the normal child is usually aware in an instinctive manner, and unconsciously resents by reacting accordingly. The worst outcome of such a method of disciplining is that the child copies the action of the parent, and in turn becomes irritable itself. Child psychology teaches that the malleable mind of the child is amenable only to concrete ideas, to sympathy, affection and amusement, so that any other method of approach fails of its purpose.

In discipline, as in vocational guidance and other factors, the great idea that has evidently been lost sight of by educators of the present day, is the fact that there has not been brought home to the child the desire to co-ordinate its ideas in conformance to and corroboration with the ideals of ethical behavior. The Federal Government, through the Education Bureau, is sending out volumes of literature to bring home to the child and educator alike the necessity for longer school attendance, for vocational guidance, for thrift, and like matters; but as for improvement in our

ideals of deportment, one hears nothing. Everyone seemingly is content in the complacent belief that all is well where there is no protest.

Once the child has been imbued with a certain amount of selfrestraint in childhood, then the greater questions that loom up during adolescence and later, are much more easily handled than is the case in the present-day methods in pedagogy. No doubt, in the matter of discipline, as in other things, parents and pedagogues alike have been influenced by extreme cases occurring in the past, and to be recalled as a disagreeable specter when least expected. To mention but one example, we cite the mentally perverted German schoolmaster, Dippold, who, on having two children confided to his care, flogged both of them until one died of the injuries. No doubt we have had our Dippolds in America as well, the result being, of course, the swinging to the other extreme, where a mere discussion of the topic of discipline brands one as an incompetent educator in the eyes of the unlearned.

Let us hope that the near future will see instituted some logical and serious endeavors toward the solving of an undeniable problem. Let us have less play to the gallery of sentimentalism. Let us achieve a finer Americanism,

Training a Citizen Army

ELBRIDGE COLBY, CAPTAIN, INFANTRY, O. R. C., and
INSTRUCTOR, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA.

T

HE military organization of this country is undergoing a change in character, and the time has come when the new policies must be applied to new circumstances. There was a day when the army was the field for adventure; now it is urged as an opportunity for education, the slogan "Join the Army and See the World!" giving place to "Earn While You Learn." Also, with such a large proportion of the youths of this country already made slightly familiar with the rudiments of military science through active service or through the S. A. T. C., the R. O. T. C., and the H. S. V. A., the uniform has lost some of its pristine lure. Thirdly, the wages now being paid labor in this country,-deceptively alluring when one forgets the high cost of food, clothing and lodging,-lead young men into the trades and away from the ranks. These circumstances have brought about the present situation, which, in regard to the future of the army, may be briefly analyzed as follows:

(A) BASIC TRAINING FOR ALL CITIZENS.

Since a very large standing army seems impracticable in America, the aim of the advocates of adequate preparedness for national defense should be to see that as many citizens as possible receive at some time in their lives thorough military training.

(B) EDUCATIONAL ADJUNCTS TO THE REGULAR ARMY.

Enlistments in the regular army are to be secured under the proper plea of educational advantages in the form of vocational training, nationally subsidized, in return for the performance of military duties.

These two factors, (A) and (B), may be accepted as axioms.

*

They are the fundamental elements at the bottom of the present theories in regard to national defense, whether those theories are held by soldiers or by civilians, admitted by "militarists" or urged by pacifists.

It shall be my purpose to show how, building on these two axioms, we may fulfill the two-fold requirements for national de fense, which are, a standing army sufficiently large for immediate emergencies, and a citizenry sufficiently grounded in the elements for rapid drafting, mobilization and intensive training.

(A) BASIC TRaining for All CITIZENS.

(a) The usually regarded means for providing basic training for all citizens are the military schools, the national guard, and the military colleges.

(1) The military schools are so few in number and draw their personnel from such exceptional classes, that it is unwise to generalize much about them. There are private military academies for the sons of the ridiculously rich-an inconsequential factor. There are public high schools where military training is given, either optionally, as in Minnesota, or according to law, as in New York.

(2) The national guard is likewise open to serious objections as a unit to be depended upon for giving basic training to any consistent proportion of the citizen population. Some states, some towns, support their units with far more than the assigned quota ; some fall considerably short of theirs. The classes of people reached are likewise various: the national guard tends so much to be a social organization that, like any club, it recruits mostly from folk congenial to one another.

(3) The military colleges where R. O. T. C. courses are given similarly fall short of meeting our demands in this respect: first, because only about 2 per cent of our population can be reckoned on as college bred; second, because not all colleges give this training. It is true that there has been a commendable increase in their numbers since 1917, even such privately endowed institutions as Columbia and Yale joining with the land-grant institutions.