To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 contains two redeeming features for the liberally-minded person opposed to the complete slavery of the individual to the state who will have to fill out his questionnaire within the next few weeks. In the first place, it was passed by representatives of the people purely as a measure of defense for the United States, and therefore the following clause was inserted: "Persons inducted into the land forces of the United States under this Act shall not be employed beyond the limits of the Western Hemisphere except in the Territories and possessions of the United States, including the Phillippine Islands." [Sec. 3 (o)]. The majority of people supporting the Act would have opposed it without this assurance that it was to be purely a measure of Hemisphere defense.

There is no assurance, however, that the law will always retain this safeguard. By merely repealing this clause, Congress can rule that registered persons henceforth inducted into the land forces of the United States shall be employed in any war in which the government at the moment, perhaps compelled by imperialistic monopoly interests or mob hysteria, may see fit to engage.

Fortunately, the Act gives an opportunity for those "conscientiously opposed to war in any form" to state the conditions under which they would be willing to fight, and those under which they would be opposed to doing so. Within the next few weeks, every man between the ages of twenty-one and thirty-six will be faced with the alternatives of stating his conscientious feelings about war, or of tacitly approving war "in any form."

The second important phrase of the Act states: "Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combatant training and service in the land or naval forces of the United States who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to war in any form." [Sec. 5 (g)]. There are two significant phrases in this passage. The first, "by reason of religious training and belief," is ambiguous. Can anyone be sure what origins of "training and belief" are at the bottom of his most sincere and fundamental convictions? According to informed opinion, the interpretation of this clause will be liberal. There is no reason why those opposed to war for specific political or humanitarian reasons cannot, at least, make their cases known.

The second important phrase, "conscientiously opposed to war in any form," is more significant for what it leaves unsaid than for what it does say. Anyone who does not make any statement under this section, Section X on his questionnaire, is tacitly giving his conscientious approval to participation in "any form" of war, not only in defensive war. Form 47, to be sent in along with the questionnaire, will be the last chance for those who sincerely oppose war, or who believe only in defensive war, to make their full position known. A large enough body of determined opinion against the involvement of this coutnry in a non-defensive or imperialistic war is sure in this way to reach the cars of the authorities. On the other hand, neglecting the use of Form 47 not only is passing by the last opportunity to make your personal convictions known to the authorities; it further implies a tacit approval of war "in any form"-at any time, at any place, and for any motives that the government of the moment, under the pressure of the moment, may dictate. Curtis L. Clay, Jr. '41.