NATIONAL GUARD VS. REGULAR ARMY.

Colonel Logan will find many supporters for the views which he presented in yesterday's CRIMSON. He is entirely right in his abhorrence of militarism. It is, nevertheless, not easy to see how an officer with his experience can advocate a return to the old "system" which has so often been a failure.

He does, however, urge the necessity of an army. That is good. But how, in the light of past experience, can he advocate the National Guard as our first line of defence? At the border, it took six months to "condition" the Militia. In the present war the bulk of the Guard divisions were sent overseas after many of the National Army troops. Yet, assuming as he does that we need troops, it is taking a lot for granted to suppose that in the next emergency we shall be given six months or a year before we must fight.

His next statement is amazing. The "specialists" for this army--machine gunners, engineers, and so forth--are to be formed from a nucleus of regulars in case of emergency. Are the lessons of the recent war forgotten? The Regular Army took five months to "expand" and to whip recruits into shape. But human nature is ever optimistic. Next time we hope we will do better.

His proposal as to the citizen army is strangely reminiscent of Mr. Bryan. Physical training in schools and colleges is essentially desirable but it is not obvious just how it will make every citizen ready to become a soldier at a moment's notice, especially when French, British and American army experts fix six months as the minimum training for recruits Rating an any after an emergency is much like organizing a fire department after the outbreak of a conflagration.

Colonel Logan's fear of Prussianism seems slightly unnecessary. Such men as President Roosevelt and General Wood have repeatedly pointed out the dangers of the haphazard volunteer system and the fallacy of leaving national defense to the most brave and patriotic.

The Colonel's effort to interest the public in an army and to build up the National Guard is very laudable. A good Militia makes an excellent second line of defence. But we must not entrust our national safety to amateur policemen. If the United States needs an army at all it needs an effective one. This would include, besides the citizen soldiery an efficient well paid army of regular combat troops.