95 



•strategy, the history of campaifrns, fortification, problems in "grand tactics," 

 ete.. would hriiig the instruction more within the range of college studies. 



(2) The inspectors sent to examine and report on th(» coiulition of the mili- 

 tary departments in collfges should he exijerienced. hroad-minded men, cai)able 

 of understanding the situation in its larger meaning and possibilities. Some 

 of the institutions have had occasion to complain that yomig otticers. from 

 inability to appreciate the difference Itetween a literary and a .strictly nulitary 

 institution, have done them great injustice by setting up an im])ossiblc standard 

 of efficiency and severely connnenting on alleged delincjuencies. The inspector, 

 especially if continued in office long enough to learn its possiltilities. can. by 

 conferring and cooperating with the college authorities, by instruction and 

 advice to the cadet officers, and in many other ways, easily double the efficiency 

 of the military instruction. The institution represented !>y the writer of this 

 paper enjoyed all these l)enefils and others under the Inspectorship of Col. 

 (now Gen.) U. P. Hughes, I. S. Army. A well-trained officer, a strict dis- 

 ciplinarian, and a tlioroughly soldierly man. he interested himself to bring the 

 college battalion up to the highest state of efliciency and to promote the true 

 military spirit among the young men of the institution. In doing this he 

 gatliered to meet Iiim the officers of the battalion, lectured them, scolded them, 

 praised them, instructed them, and so discliarged the duties of Iiis office in a' 

 way at once itrofessional and human that his visits were looked forward to 

 with interest and ivmembered with pleasure, and though his reports sometimes 

 scored us severely we knew that they were just an(i kindly. If the (iovern- 

 ment would always send out inspectors equally- faithful to the War Department 

 .and equally helpful to the institutions, there would be little cause for com- 

 plaint on either side and the problem of efficient military training in the col- 

 leges would be in a fair way of satisfactory solution. 



E. R. Nichols, of Kansas. I am very much in favor of military drill from 

 ■every standpoint, and I believe it Is fortunate that it is a part of tlie endowment 

 of these colleges. It seems to me the management of this military matter is 

 largely a local affair. I have reference now as to whether it shall be one day 

 or two days or five days a week, and whether it shall be one, two, three, or four 

 years, whether it shall be in the fall or spring terms or how it shall be. In our 

 <?ollege we would as soon have drill four days in the week as two, but we would 

 dislike to have it five days. It is desirable to have one afternoon off in which 

 students can have their literary and athletic exercises and things of that nature. 

 It is desirable that we have drill four days and not five days. I would propose 

 as a possible solution of this question that we ask the War Department to state 

 the maximum number of hours that will be satisfactory to them for practice, 

 for theory, and for the ceremonials, leaving each college to apportion the time 

 through the week as best meets their conditions. We have tried various ways 

 of meeting the present requirements without success at the Kansas Agricultural 

 College. I believe, however, if we would ask the \A'ar Department to fix the 

 number of hours for practice and theory and the ceremonials that we can adjust 

 ourselves to the condition unless it is made very difficult. 



C. C. Thach. of Alabama. There are some points that have been covered in 

 the paper by President Buckham and in the comments by President Nichols 

 that I think should be emphasized. We have had experience in military instruc- 

 tion in our institution in Alabama since its inception about thirty years ago. and 

 we stand, I think, somewhat on the middle ground in that respect. I agree with 

 President Nichols that this is a local question very largely, and the conditions 

 vary widely in different institutions. It should be left in all its details and 

 uiinutite to the boards of control of the several institutions. In our institution 

 we have a quasi military organization, but much attention has from the first 

 been given to military training. 



The act of 1862 explicitly requires such training, and I do not believe that we 

 can comply with the .spirit or the letter of the law without having military in- 

 struction of a very definite and fixed amount and nature. Our experience bears 

 out the statement by President Buckham that the United States Government 

 2.3880— No. 15.3—05 m 7 



