Canada and national service

Front matter

CANADA

AND NATIONAL SERVICE

¥ COLONEL WILLIAM HAMILTON MERRITT

Foreword

The recognition that all was not well with the system of defence in vogue in Canada, that we lacked even the basic principle of national organisation and preparedness, did not come to me through being told something or reading something. In my case it eventuated from a distinct process of evolution, through seeing vastly different results from other conditions, and then from enquiring into what had brought them about.

It is now nearly a dozen years ago that chance led me into the mountains of Switzerland, after more than a score of years’ experience in the Canadian Militia. There, enquiry into the matter of shooting led to an enfolding of enough of the wonder of a true democracy of defence thoroughly to arouse my interest. This was the beginning of a general investigation, at every opportunity, of the Military systems pertaining to other countries, and of an examination into the conditions that prevailed in Canada in our past history. By contrast the hopelessness of our existing conditions was all too apparent.

The facts presented in the following pages concerning these things were gradually accumulated, and many of them were contributed from time to time in papers to the Canadian Military Institute, v vi FOREWORD in addresses before such representative bodies as the Canadian Club, the Empire Club, the Toronto Board of Trade, the Military Institutes at Montreal and Winnipeg, the United Empire Loyalist Association, the citizens of Calgary, and through frequent communications to the public press.

It would be ungrateful to complain at goodnatured tolerance on the part of our public, but it was certainly very apparent that no great apprehension was created.

Even at the present critical time it seems that the political and commercial world is much more concerned with the matter of contracts for munitions and war supplies, and with commercial preparedness for peace, than with anything which is drastic or obligatory as necessary to win the war and to give a permanent foundation for future national security.

As this book may fall into the hands of persons who are strangers to me, and who might reasonably ask as to what experience the writer has had bearing on matters involved herein, it may be proper and indeed necessary briefly to state that from a private I was gazetted an officer and went through the grades of rank to that of a Regimental Commander and a Brigade Commander in the Canadian Militia, serving the usual tenure of command as one and the other. During that time I had the experience of serving in the North-West (Riel) Rebellion and the South African War. In the latter the service was in two periods, first with Brabant’s Horse, a South African regiment (I went to South Africa at

FOREWORD Vii my own expense to seek service), and second, with the 2nd Canadian Mounted Rifles, an Imperial unit raised in Canada. From the above-mentioned services, came the receptive mind and practical experience which enabled me to appreciate the impressions above recorded, when visiting Switzerland in later years.

Further, for the same reasons, perhaps I should state that those in kindred line of thought appear to have had some measure of confidence in my views ~ and organising ability, as is borne out by my having been elected President of the Canadian Military Institute for ten years in succession and Honorary President for the past three years, presiding officer of the Canadian Defence League since it was formed in 1909 to further universal military training and service in Canada, and President of the Canadian Cavalry Association for the year 1912.*

I cheerfully acknowledge that a wider vision of the needs of the British Empire was brought home to me by the remarkable paper of Mr. L. S. Amery, M.P., on ‘‘ Military Geography,’’ in which he most clearly proved that the security of the Empire depends on its general adoption of universal military service. Therefore my plea before the Empire Club that Canada should not continue to be ‘‘the weak link in the Imperial chain’’ was founded on good authority.

I cannot do better in these few introductory remarks than by asking the question and supplying

1 This Dapociation was the first military body in Canada to advocate Compulsion. On 29 Feb., 1912, it unanimously enacted ‘‘That this Assocation commends and approves of the principle of universal military training in Canada.”

viii FOREWORD the answer of the greatest of our Colonial Ministers, the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain: ‘‘What is the greatest of our common obligations? It is defence!’’? And might I venture to go a step further and add Chamberlain’s succeeding question and answer, ‘‘ What is the greatest of our common wterests? It 1s Imperial trade!’’

Surely as the acceptance of a fundamental basis for these great principles should precede cut and dried schemes for carrying them out, it is of paramount importance for us in Canada first to weld our girders of defence of a sound, sure strength, and adopt the principle of common interests, before we venture to ask for a place at an Imperial Board as a represetative partner. With steel ribs of obligation in defence, covered by the cement of trade, an Imperial structure on foundations of mutual respect and love, deep and strong, will defy the ravages of time.

This book is not designed as a plea for meeting the problem of keeping the ranks of the divisions at the front at full strength. Compulsory universal military service would, however, if adopted at once, do this, and at the same time it would give a basis for a sane defence system for Canada, as a responsible member of the British Empire, for the future. Perhaps this, unhappily, may be too much to hope for, as ‘‘indifference’’ appears to want an emergency measure. The public mind seems to have grasped the idea that under the mutilated remnant of our splendid old Militia Act we can bring in compulsion by Order-in-Council.

FOREWORD ix

Here, in that event, is the point of which, every lover of his country will pray, sight may not be lost. Speed up enlistment by any and every means that may lay in the power of our legislators or ourselves, but for God’s sake do not let us forget the fact that the solving of the immediate problem—tremendous though it be—is not the only goal to be aimed at, for above and beyond it all lies the great future with its mysteries and cares, and that nothing but a changed Militia law—back somewhat to what it was a hundred years ago—will give us that stability of purpose, upbuilding of character and physique, and safety to Dominion and Empire which comes from a virile system of national organisation, based on Universal Military Training and Service.

Professor F. F. Roget of Geneva, who has so greatly aided the National Service League campaign in England, first suggested the idea of a compilation in book form and my thanks are due to him for much kindly interest. I also wish to acknowledge the encouragement and suggestions of Mr. Edward Wodson, the Secretary of the Canadian Defence League.

Practically all this book was written while Canada had no Compulsory Military Service in force, or apparently even in contemplation. Some of the argument in its favour may seem to be somewhat superfluous if the obligatory service clauses of the Militia Act by draft or otherwise are brought into force, or if a Special Act for the war only is adopted. Yet as a matter of fact every line and every argument holds good until Canada adopts, as a permax FOREWORD nent system, some form of Universal Military Training and Service, and in face of a mere emergency measure, necessary as it may be, the pressure needed to bring about a stable National System is all the more required until it is an accomplished and established fact.

W.H.M.

Toronto, June Ist, 1917.

Contents

CHAPTER PacE SEIN STION AT. SPIRIT’. Coc. oo ss ele ees ne 1

XI

TABLES

Chapter I National Spirit

‘‘Oh, we are the men of the Northern zone, Shall a bit be placed in our mouth? If ever a Northern lost his throne, Did the conqueror come from the South? Nay, nay—and the answer blent In chorus is Southward sent.

Since when has a Southerner’s steel Hewed out in the North a throne?

Since when has a Southerner placed his heel ‘On the men of the Northern zone? Our hearts are free as the rivers that flow To the seas where the North Star shines. Our lives are free as the breezes that blow Thro’ the crests of our native pines. We never will bend the knee, We'll always and aye be free, For liberty reigns in the land of the leal, Our brothers are round her throne; A Southerner never shall place his heel On the men of the Northern zone!’’ —The Khan

Thus sang our Northern, rugged rhymster, and the echo rings true, that no better material in men exists on God’s earth than is contained within the far-flung bounds of Canada. But, oh, the pity of it, 1 that such material should be handicapped, and should have been handicapped, by, perhaps, the most expensive and ineffective military system of any civilised community in the world! It can be laid down as an axiom, which, for the benefit of my country, I shall endeavour to set forth in the following pages that, without a basis of compulsion, and lacking the democratic principle of decentralised co-operation, an efficient and economical military system for Canada is impossible.

With the ever present shadow of great ambitious powers, greedy for virgin resources, God grant that ‘“‘The Khan’’ may be right, but let us not forget what is laid down in Holy Writ about a ‘‘strong man armed,’’ and who will deny that the truths of the Bible will ring down through the ages to the end of all things?

The efficiency of a nation for ‘defence is based upon the national spirit therein prevailing. If a basis of personal self-sacrifice for the good of the state, for the safety of the flag and country, is at the root of the national spirit, other things will follow; but if the matter of personal subordination and the cultivation of a wholesome discipline take second place to luxuries and licenses, and if the strenuous life, necessary to bring about the best conditions for national health and defence, is abandoned, then may the decadence of that people well be looked for. When everything connected with the preparation for defence of country is derided as waste of time and means, as has, unfortunately, been the prevailing view in Canada, satisfactory results in morale, physique, and military knowledge become impossible. When the people at large think so little of preparedness that they will allow it to be the ‘‘nlaything’’ of politicians and under the centralised control of one of them, the whole fabric of national defence is without a foundation.

A reasonable deduction from the situation, as it has been shown to exist at the time of penning these words, is that from a non-elastic and only partially trained militia of actually some 50,000, without a trained reserve, and whose system makes the development of practised leaders impossible, an army of some 400,000 has been raised for war against an experienced enemy. On the face of it this seems an impossibility, and so it is. The new force has not the organisation of the old, its training is very different, and there is much change in arms and equipment. It would sound like beginning to raise a force after war started, and so it was. How would it have been had the danger struck from another direction, and we should then have required more than double the 400,000 to feel that Canada was safe? Is not the deduction clear that, from a national defence point of view, we have been living in a fool’s Paradise, and that both the exigencies of the moment and the safeguarding of our country in the future demand the immediate inauguration of a system of Universal Military Training and Service?

It is advisable for any patriotic Canadian whe eares for the safety of his country, or, indeed, the future integrity of the British Empire, to take to heart the lesson which is now being taught—for history repeats itself—and consider not only what is necessary to strengthen our hands and our arms at the present critical moment, but also what should be done to safeguard a future, the outcome of which no man can foresee. It will also be well worth his while to consider why there is such a marked difference in the military standards between a country where it is the duty of every citizen to prepare himself to defend his hearth and home, and one where it is purely a matter of voluntary choosing. Even when he will arrive at a general basis for comparison, as shown by the respective laws and customs, he will find that he has learned but half the tale, for behind it all lies the perforce slip-shod performance of the observances under a voluntary system, while crisp and thorough rendering of the strict letter of the law is the result of a patriotic universal service system.

Before giving some illustrations of national spirit and its effect on national safety, let me explain some general terms, to which naturally I shall be obliged to allude from time to time, and which are frequently made use of in the public press without the public at large thoroughly grasping their true significance.

Take such an expression as ‘‘ Militarism!’’ What does it mean? Complete and permanent organisation of the whole people on a military basis, for military service is not militarism. The professionalising of a portion of the people, the creation of a military caste, is militarism. Militarism exists much rather in the voluntary system, where the matter of pay is the factor of service, than in an obligatory system where duty to the nation and the purest kind of patriotism is the impelling influence.

The Prussian model of a great army of professional officers, or, on a lesser scale, the regular-army model of the British army, promotes what can properly be called militarism. But to say of the highly trained, yet industrious, peace-loving Swiss nation, that its system of universal compulsory military service makes for militarism is a statement utterly devoid of foundation. All the officers of the German army are professional soldiers, taught to look upon themselves as a superior and separate casie from the rest of the people. And in Engiand the regular army, a permanent professional force, is open to the same charge.

President C. W. Eliot of Harvard University very correctly puts the matter, as it can be viewed by a lay mind, in saying, ‘‘The English army has always been—until ‘Kitchener’s army’ was created —an army officered from the upper classes and recruited by voluntary enlistment from the lower. It has never been a popular or national army in the sense of Continental Europe, where conscription or universal military service has long prevailed.”

But in Switzerland, go into a druggist’s or a jeweller’s, and in the one you may be waited upon by the commanding officer of an artillery regiment, or in the other by a smart young captain of an infantry company, who is the partner of his mother in the business. In both cases the officers had first served as privates, and had gone up step by step to their present positions, as they proved competent. Is it likely that these men, busy in their civil occupations, pressed for time to attend the thorough military courses which they must take every now and then, are clamouring for war to give them promotion? Such a thing is unthinkable to anyone who knows the situation and the people. The whole professional element of the 538,600 army of Switzerland is little more than 200, or about one-twentieth of that of the permanent militia of Canada.

Then again, one constantly hears and sees the terms ‘‘Conscription’’ and ‘‘Universal Military Service’’ used in all sorts of connections. Therefore, it would be better to make clear at the commencement what the difference between them is, for there is the greatest difference in the world. Conscription is unequal because it does not apply to all; therefore it is unfair and undemocratic. Universal military service applies equally to all; therefore it is fair and truly democratic.

Strictly defined, it might be laid down that the essential difference between universal military service and conscription is that in the former case all

1 So truly democratic is Switzerland that no distinctions are given for military or®other service, nor are they allowed to be worn if given by a foreign country, and certainly Switzerland does not place the indignity on its militia service, nor on the soldier who has worked his way up from the bottom, by the creation of Honorary Colonels etc., galore. No one ever heard of an honorary anything in Switzerland's army.

The matter was aptly treated editorially by the 2'oronto Evening Telegram of 13th February last as follows ;—‘‘ Canada is invited to pronounce the voluntary system of military service a failure on account of that system’s tendency to produce too many colonels and too few recruits.”

NATIONAL SPIRIT re able-bodied males are liable to serve, and (where thoroughly administered) exemptions are confined to individual cases, such as only sons of widows, and Judges, clergy, ete. The latter involves the choosing by lot of a regulated annual conscript contingent from amongst a considerably larger number of young men of military age, and the possibility of exemption on payment or on finding a substitute. Conscription has been almost universally abandoned. The name, however, seems to cling to the English-speaking world and is frequently applied in error to universal service. Conscription has inherited a bad name. In the old days drafts were necessary to fill up the regular army fighting abroad, and as voluntary enlistment did not suffice to fill up wastage, recourse was had to the draft, and men were balloted for. The ‘‘conscripts’’ thus taken, and their families, often had strong feelings against a system which took some and left others similarly situated. Thus, ‘‘give a dog a bad name’’ and put that name where it should not apply, and it needs a lot of explaining to convince people that it is not the same dog at all. Therefore the sooner the name ‘‘eonscription’’ can be done away with, when applied to Universal Service, the better.

We come now to the consideration of another matter. It is often not clear to some people why Canadian militiamen should stand under the charge of being ‘‘mercenaries,’’ and the mind is often confused as to the real difference that exists between say a soldier of France and a soldier of Canada. We know that in the old days bands of soldiers were hired not only by individuals but by states to do their fighting, and that they were termed ‘‘mercenaries.”’ Long years ago brave little Switzerland accomplished prodigies in hurling back her powerful neighbours and acquired such a reputation for her infantry that other nations, less sturdy but with more money, vied with one another in hiring her soldiery to fight for them. Then they were mercenaries. At the present time the law of Switzerland distinctly forbids such a thing. Her soldiers, like those of France, deem it a duty and an honour to bear arms for their country, which the law of their land makes an obligation. As this obligation applies to all, theirs is a Universal Military Service System, explained above, which is the antithesis of mercenary service.

Now, where the state places a charge on the individual, who is then obliged to do his duty in the defence of his country (and any money given him is not supposed to be pay for that service), a charge equally compelling comes upon the state and is assumed by it, not only to care for the soldier but also to look after those who may be dependent upon him for support. The following two clauses from the Swiss Military Law speak for themselves:

21. The Confederation assures soldiers against the monetary consequences of illness and accident. The application of this principle is regulated ‘by the law on the assurance of soldiers against illness and accident.

22. Families, who fall into privation in consequence of the military service of their breadwinner, receive relief proportionate to their necessities; this relief must not ‘be confounded with that of public charities.

And it should be remembered that in those countries where the obligation for service exists, those who are the first to come under it naturally have the least number of dependents. While on the other hand, unfortunately, a system on the mercenary basis too often fills the ranks with married men; this is alluded to more fully under the chapter on ‘Comparison and Cost.’’

At a meeting of the Dominion Grange (the great Farmers’ organisation) a commanding officer of one of the most efficient cavalry regiments of the Canadian militia (Lieut.-Colonel J. Z. Fraser, 2nd Dragoons), who had been through every grade from and including a private in the ranks, nade a very significant utterance. He said: *‘I have been a military man for nearly thirty years and I have observed that military and naval systems tend to debase the men and elevate the officers, and when you debase the men you destroy any nobility they have and any real spirit of patriotism they have. I am opposed to paid militarism; I believe in universal service. When this latter comes then militarism is banished.’’ What does this mean? It means that the experience of an intelligent Canadian farmer has shown him that mercenary service is unsatisfactory, and, indeed, debasing.

It means that the voluntary system depends for its result on the expenditure of dollars, and that the militia force of Canada is a force of mercenaries. This may not be true in its entirety, for a large number of those belonging to the militia have joined it from personal interest in the work, because it is ‘‘in the blood,’’ such as members of city regiments who do not draw their pay, giving it all into regimental funds, and therefore derive no pecuniary benefit from their service. They as a rule do their training at night in drill halls. Those, however, on the rural corps basis, who give up all their time for twelve days training in camps of instruction draw their pay, and it is not too much to say that the pay in most instances is the largest consideration for the service. I have no doubt that what was in Colonel Fraser’s mind was that the men who were secured for service at the annual camps of the militia were, in the main, the men out of a job, and, in many rural corps, those from little villages who hung round taverns of unenviable reputation. It can therefore well be contended that a distinct leaven for bad and for degradation of the farmer’s son was so often at work that grounds existed for Colonel Fraser’s charge.

So evident has this been to myself—and it is an example of the experience of a militia officer—that four years previous to this quotation I had written, in an article read before the Canadian Military Institute on Patriotic Military Service, that ‘‘the Canadian system might not improperly be designat- _ ed the ‘dollar’ system... The Militia Department has been obliged to increase the pay to fill up the ranks with ‘patriots.’ While Frenchmen draw one cent when in uniform, Canada has to adopt the ‘dollar’ basis to fill her ranks.’”

1 A notice to be seen hanging in front of the recruiting office of an American Battalion in Toronto bears this out. It reads ‘‘The best paid army in the World.

If the weight of the dollar is necessary to draw men to military service under the voluntary system, and if in peace times it brings results indicated by Colonel Fraser, we may well turn to the example afforded by other countries where service is put on a standard of duty.

It is sometimes said, we think incorrectly, that the farmers as a class are opposed to military training. The rural portions of the population, except when influenced like Colonel Fraser, take perhaps more interest in annual military training than do any other class of people, even if they do not need the purely physical side of it as much as those who are town or city bred. The life in the country proper is comparatively lonely, and the descendants of those who met in days gone by, in the annual gathering of the old sedantary militia, remember their fathers or grandfathers telling with what pleasure they looked forward to the May muster, when they would meet together. Unquestionably the association with his fellows is good for a young man, and it is of benefit and interest to him to see other parts of the country, to which military instruction or manceuvres may take him. Further, no man can fail to be benefited by the discipline.

These short notes on militarism, conscription, universal military service, and mercenaries might be taken in the light of definitions of terms. This will perhaps make it somewhat easier for the reader in later chapters. In like manner some preliminary words on a few matters of basic importance may be advisable. One of these might be a definition of the word ‘‘Preparedness,’’ but the difficulty about this is that it is so new and so comprehensive that I do not feel competent to give it. Preparedness, so far as I am aware, is one of those uniquely comprehensive designations which our neighbours to the south have invented. It seems to me that it speaks for itself and means everything from a cartridge to a howitzer, from a pair of boots to an aeroplane, or from school-boy drill to command of an army corps. At any rate, there is little doubt about it in my mind that we in Canada need preparedness just as much as Uncle Sam, and that it is as well worth the consideration of our people as it is of his.

A very important matter, which appeals to many, comes to us in connection with the education of the youth. This is treated to some extent in the chapter on ‘‘ Training for Boys.’’ It might be well to note in a general way, at the outset of our consideration of this whole matter, that, generally speaking, obligation to military service, and the training demanded by the state in connection therewith, does not usually come into foree until the person is actually taken into some part of the soldiery of the country for training or service. Generally the procedure is that the country endeavours to give all the voluntary training possible to its youth during school life. In some cases local provisions make this school training obligatory, and in some cases they do not. In some cases they have military drill and exercises, and in some cases there is nothing; but always the desire of the state is to have as much as possible, though left, so far as the national government is concerned, on a voluntary basis.

An exception has been made in this under one flag alone, and that is our own flag. Australia and New Zealand, and to a certain extent South Africa, have inaugurated a new departure, and are making the experiment of commencing this national obligatory drill and military training at a very early age. In Australia and New Zealand, as will be seen by reference to their systems under ‘‘Military Systems,’’ they have commenced this obligation at twelve years old. The process is gradual, and the requirements are light at the beginning, but these increase until the grown youth comes into the National Military System at 18 years of age; but the belief of the projectors, whose opinion Lord Kitchener endorsed, was that boys, loving this kind of work, will be so thoroughly grounded by the time they reach the citizen forces that a minimum amount of training will then enable them to be efficient soldiers.

Before reverting again to the further consideration of national spirit there are two bug-a-boos in Canada that are constantly—almost invariably— waved at anyone suggesting any form of universal military service, and with all confidence that unconditional surrender must forthwith greet their appearance. The first of these, and the greater, because it assumes the role of ‘‘master,’’ is Labour, and the second is the government of the country. We are assured that neither the one nor the other will ever consent to any form of compulsion in the matter of military service. Personally I don’t believe this, and in the first place I would venture to address a word to ‘‘Labour’’—and are we not all labourers for the land we love? Indeed, what I am saying is only to labourers who love their country and are loyal to it; to labourers who are not loyal and who do not care what flag floats over them, and whose only interest is a Union and not a Nation, these words are not addressed. Therefore, there will be few who would not be ready to give ear to them in any land over which flies the Union Jack, that emblem of fair play and liberty! I have served under the North Star and the Southern Cross with British citizen soldiers of every kind of trade and profession, and I have yet to find that Labour or ‘‘Hirmine’’ have any advantage in their ardent patriotism for flag and country when they rub shoulders in the defence forces of their nation. We will, therefore, take it unquestionably for granted that Labour is loyal.