95 
strategy, the history of campaigns, fortification, problems in "grand tactics," 
etc., would bring the Instruction more within the range of college studies. 
(2) The Inspectors sent to examine and report on the condition of the mill 
tary departments In colleges Bhould be experienced, broad-minded men, < - ; i ] > .- 1 1 > 1 < ■> 
of understanding the situation in Its larger meaning and possibilities. Sonic 
of the institutions have had occasion to complain that young officers, from 
inability to appreciate the difference between a literary and a strictly military 
institution, have done them great injustice l.y setting up an Impossible standard 
of efficiency and severely commenting on alleged delinquencies. The inspector, 
especially if continued in office long enough to learn its possibilities, 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 by the writer of this 
paper enjoyed all these benefits and others under the inspectorship of Col. 
(now Gen.) R. P. Hughes, 1 . S. Army. A well-trained officer, a strict dis- 
ciplinarian, and a thoroughly soldierly man. he interested himself to bring the 
college battalion up to the highest stat" of efficiency and to promote the true 
military spirit among the young men of the institution. In doing this he 
gathered to meet him the officers of the battalion, lectured them, scolded them. 
praised them, instructed them, and so discharged the duties of his office in a 
way at once professional and human that his visits were looked forward to 
with interest and remembered with pleasure, and though his reports sometimes 
scored us severely we knew that they were just and kindly. If the Govern- 
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 the 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 
•college 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 War 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 
minutiae 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 
23S80— No. 153— or, M 7 
