T H E J O U R N A L O F I N D U S T R I A L Ah’D E N G I N E E R I N G C H E M I S T R Y
2
EDITORIALS OFFICERS FOR 1920
This space has been reser.rred for a last minute
message from secretary parsons giving the names of t h e officers elected f o r t h e year 1920. A telegram received just before going t o press announces t h e following: President W. A. Noyes
Directors Wilder D. Bancroft A. D. Little Councilors-at-Large Irving Langmuir TVm. McPherson
S.W .
Parr
,
M . C. Whitaker
CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE ENDANGERED
T h e House of Representatives is about t o fly t h e t r a c k . No, t h a t statement is too b r o a d ; confine it t o t h e House Committee on Military Affairs Reliable information reaches us t h a t in t h e House bill, now being drafted, for t h e reorganization of t h e Army, t h e Chemical Warfare Service is t o be made a subord i n a t e division of Ordnance. This is a most surprising development A few weeks ago there seemed t o be a practically unanimous opinion among members of Congress t h a t this Service should be a separate a n d distinct unit of t h e War Department. This opinion was confirmed by a s t a t e m e n t of Hon. Julius K a h n , Chairman of t h e House Committee o n Military Affairs. reported in t h e C o n gressional Record of November 1 5 , 1919, p. 9061 Among other things, he said: It is believed by the members of the committee that in the legislation that we will ultimately report to the House such branches of the Army as a tank section and a chemical warfare section will have to be provided These are two of the entirely new developments of modern warfare. This important pronouncement was given wide publicity by t h e Washington correspondents of t h e daily press as forecasting t h e probable outline of t h e bill soon t o be reported b y t h e Committee. Then Mr. K a h n was called t o California. There were further grounds for t h e conviction t h a t all was going well as t o t h e Chemical Warfare Service. On November 2 2 , 1919, t h e Annual Report of t h e Chief of Staff was issued a n d in this report General March, with t h e hospital reports before him an@ nounced t h a t gas warfare had been proved humane. Evidently t h e General has learned well t h e execution of t h a t feature of military tactics known a t one t i m e as “Right a b o u t , face!” And t h e n on December 18, 1919,t h e Washington correspondent of t h e Xew York Ez’eniizg S u n sent t o t h a t publication a lengthy special dispatch, evidently written with authorization, outlining the general features ol t h e bill for t h e reorganization of t h e Army, now being drafted
’
Vol.
12,
NO.
I
I
b y a subcommittee of t h e Senate. One of t h e features of this bill, according t o t h e correspondent, will be “establishment of t h e Chemical Warfare Service as a separate branch of t h e Army.” This information we had received from Other sources. Was ever a legislative m a t t e r in prettier shape t h a n this seemed t o be? T h e original plan of t h e General Staff had been t o b u r y t h e Chemical Warfare Service b y making it a subordinate division of t h e Engineer Corps. T h i s move, however, seemed t o h a v e been upset completely b y t h e overwhelming conviction among members of Congress t h a t there should be a separate and distinct unit. ?Tow comes o u t of Washington t h e reliably confirmed report t h a t under t h e acting chairmanship of Representative D. R. Anthony, Jr., of Kansas, t h e House Committee is drafting a bill in which this Service is t o be made a subordinate division of Ordnance, n o t upon t h e grounds originally set forth b y Secretary Baker a n d General March, in recommending its minimization a s a branch of t h e Engineer Corps, b u t f o r reasons of e c o n o m y . As we t r y t o trace t h e origin of this new movement, invariably we hear t h a t t h e General Staff is responsible for i t . T h e old determination .to smother this Service still exists; there i s proposed only a shift in i t s location, a n d t h i s proposal is cloaked under t h e specious argument of economy. We are not willing t o believe t h a t a majority of t h e House would accept a n y such recommendation. Ordnance itself does not desire i t . This is attested b y t h e words of General Pershing. His testimony before t h e Joint Committee of t h e House a n d Senate was a s follows: I think it ’[Chemical Warfare Service] should be developed, and it would be developed better under a separate organization than under any other bureau. There is no doubt about that. The Chief of Ordnance does not know anything about it, and he does not want it, as far as that is concerned. The Chief of Ordnance, I have no doubt, would give to it every attention. But it is not in his line, and he could not give it the attention that it should be given; he would not draw to his aid the chemists of the country so readily as some man who had been closely associated with the Chemical Warfare Service would do. That is a very important matter, because it would be a department of investigation. As t o economy, we fail t o see t h e point. One thing is certain: Failure t o make t h e Service a separate unit will deaden t h e cooperative spirit among t h e civilian chemists of t h e country. General Sibert a n d Colonel Fries are right when t h e y estimate this cooperation a t so high a value. I t can readily be obtained a n d without cost, b u t t h e chemists of t h e country must feel t h a t t h e y are engaged upon something which Congress considers worth while. General March, in his Annual Report, gives t h e clinching argument in favor of a highly developed Chemical Warlare Service. H e points out t h a t t h e chief lesson of t h e war is t h e necessity of having t h e nation so organized in peace t h a t its entire resources may be instantly a n d effectively mobilized for war. Then he a d d s :
