or unfit to do military service." For, he continues, "These are not 

 necessarily synonymous, for there are certain ailments which a person 

 may have and still be fit for military service; and, on the other hand, 

 he may be unfit for service without there being any special physical 

 disability." It is self-evident that it must often be a most difficult 

 matter to decide whether or not a certain condition really unfits one 

 for service, and it is therefore particularly significant, as pointed out 

 by Dr. Harris, "that the rules and regulations are not definite and 

 clear on the subject," and that "therefore much is necessarily left to 

 the judgment of the examining physician." These conclusions were 

 arrived at, however, before the new rules and regulations of the 

 Provost-Marshal General's office were made public. In answer to the 

 important question whether the rejection statistics are really conclusive 

 as regafds the physical condition of the registrants of merely a statis- 

 tical enumeration of the principal causes of rejection on the ground 

 of unfitness for military service, Dr. Harris, on the basis of his own 

 experience, states (Journal American Medical Association, January 

 19, 1918) that 



When the registrant alleged more than one ailment, which was very common, 

 he was examined first for the most important one from a disqualifying sense. 

 For instance, one might complain of bad eyes, trouble with his stomach, and 

 rheumatism. The eyes would be examined first, and if the vision was found 

 to be so defective as positively to disqualify the man, no time was spent in 

 investigating his other complaints. It should be understood that the purpose 

 of the examination is to determine the fitness or unfitness of the registrant 

 for military service, not to make a complete clinical diagnosis such as one 

 would do in practice. Hence, just as soon as a condition is found which under 

 the rules and regulations positively disqualifies the man for military service, 

 the examination need not be further extended. This, of course, applies to 

 examinations on appeal, as it is necessary in all cases for the local board to 

 make a complete examination and fill out a blank form as required by the 

 rules and regulations. 



It would appear from this statement that a complete examination of 

 the registrant is made by the Local Board, but that only a single ques- 

 tion, as a rule, receives consideration with the Board of Appeal. If this 

 conclusion is entirely correct, the value of the rejection statistics by 

 causes would be materially enhanced. Unfortunately, it is said 

 that under the First Draft, at least, "The rules laid down for the 

 guidance of physicians are quite incomplete and often ambiguous, so 

 that much was left to the unaided judgment of the examiner," 

 since many had "perhaps little or no experience in selecting men for 

 the army, errors in judgment are not uncommon." The greatest number 

 of errors, according to Dr. Harris, was made in the examination of 

 the eyes. Since, according to the Provost-Marshal General's analysis, 

 visual defects accounted for 21.68 per cent, of all the rejections for 

 physical reasons, this element of error assumes special significance. 

 In contrast, however, overlooked cases of pulmonary tuberculosis were 

 ascertained on appeal, even though some of the applicants "had been 



87 



